Blow Up The Court -- I Don't Care
The Market Ticker - Commentary on The Capital Markets
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
Full-Text Search & Archives

Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.


Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2020-09-26 17:25 by Karl Denninger
in Politics , 201 references Ignore this thread
Blow Up The Court -- I Don't Care
[Comments enabled]

The Democrats have threatened to blow up the Supreme Court, basically, by packing it.

Of course they also are screaming that Trump appointing a justice now is blowing up the court.

In other words, one way or another the Supreme Court is going to get blown up.

I'm not sure I care any more.

The Supreme Court has long ruled however it wants to rule, which isn't its job.  It just arrogated that to itself and nobody has done a damned thing about it.  Just like The Fed has done whatever the Hell it wants to do, even when directly contrary to the enabling statute that created it.  I remind you The Fed's actual statute says:

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Open Market Committee shall maintain long run growth of the monetary and credit aggregates commensurate with the economy's long run potential to increase production, so as to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.

[12 USC 225a. As added by act of November 16, 1977 (91 Stat. 1387) and amended by acts of October 27, 1978 (92 Stat. 1897); Aug. 23, 1988 (102 Stat. 1375); and Dec. 27, 2000 (114 Stat. 3028).]

Stable prices are not "increasing 2% a year"; they're stable.  Moderate long term interest rates are not near-zero; by definition time has value and therefore to be "moderate" the long term interest rate must be somewhat above the expansion rate of the economy over the same period of time.

The Fed has done no such thing for roughly 100 years.  It has done so deliberately.  The evidence is incontrovertible, since the price level and interest rates compared with nominal GDP are trivially assessed.

Exactly nobody has ever gone to prison for this nor has The Fed had their mandate pulled.

This is not to your benefit as a common citizen.  Ever.  It is, however, wildly to the politicians and a handful of people on Wall Street, K Street in DC and others' benefit.  And -- it is illegal.

Note that the Constitution sets forth the right of the Federal Government to issue patents (Article I Section 8.)  Patents, however, are denied by statute for any "naturally-occurring thing"; that is, you cannot patent a plant, animal, RNA or DNA unless you created it in a lab.  Well, there are several coronavirus patents held by US parties.  Either this is proof Covid19 was created in a lab funded by and thus with rights assigned to a US entity or said patents are a public fraud committed upon the people of the United States directly by employees of the US Government and thus constitute federal felonies.  Which is it?

Note that the very same Article I Section 8 says that the military may be called up to suppress insurrections.  What is burning or otherwise attacking a federal courthouse?  Well?   Law and order eh?  What happened when people fired on Ft. Sumpter?

The Civil War was largely due to the refusal of the Federal Government to follow Article I Section 9 which prohibits the preference of one port or goods transited through it versus anotherYet that's exactly what the Federal Government did and ****ed the southern crop-growing states.  If you think that was "merely" about slavery you really need to go read what Lincoln wrote about slaves and what he said he'd like to do with all the black people in America. That SOB was a ridiculously racist ******* and he got a ****-ton of people killed.  You might also want to pay attention to the fact that the invention of machinery was in the process of rendering slavery uneconomic.  Further, if you consume anything made with palm oil (that would be virtually any cosmetic or packaged food!) or own a pair of Nikes or many articles of clothing you are personally benefiting from slave labor in Asia, specifically Malaysia and China, right now.  Oh yes, slavery was a big part of what led to the war, but it was egged on by both sides who wanted to see blood run in the streets.  But slavery was hardly all of it; if it had been we would have blown China back to the stone age 20+ years ago.  Instead we let them seed viruses into our nation and kill a couple hundred thousand Americans because it makes the stock price of Nike, Amazon, WalMart and more go up despite screwing the common American and their wages blind.

Are we really all that better now than in the 1860s when we loot, burn and shoot because a man shot at the cops who came to raid his residence with a warrant and as a result they returned fire?  The Grand Jury in Kentucky correctly found that rounds going into a different apartment by said cops are criminal negligence but firing back when fired upon is not a crime.

It had ******n well better not be a crime -- not anywhere in America anyway, no matter the date, time, and who is doing the shooting back.  The day that changes it's time for everyone to shoot now and let God sort out the pile of bodies.

As I have often noted there is no such thing as "resisting arrest"; you decide at the time they come that you're either going to fight it out in court and thus you surrender peacefully or you kill all of them right there and you better get them all too because they are going to kill you if they can.  That's the decision.  It's binary.  "Resisting" is not a choice made by anyone who is sane because you cannot win and whatever the original charge was you just made it much worse with no possibility of gain.  Zero-gain, always-lose actions are by definition undertaken only by insane individuals.  So those who have rioted, looted and burned in all of these alleged "insults" did so because someone was insane and got what frequently happens when you act violently without the benefit of sanity.

That has exactly nothing to do with skin color so what is all this bull**** about looting, shooting and burning?

Where's that ****ing asteroid I keep praying for?

Then of course there is the seminal "**** you" to Federalism out of the USSC in the form of Wickard .v. Filburn where they literally tore up the Constitutional separation between Federal and State governments which is the very foundation on which our Republic rests.  That alone is cause for an asteroid strike while the Court is in session and at the time was cause for an immediate Revolution.  Again, I note the Supremes are not there to decide what the Constitution says; English is a precise language and the Founders were not only really careful with their words they took a hell of long time debating every one of them too.  Nor is The Court there to decide how to twist said language, which they have done repeatedly including in both Wickard and Miller.  Indeed, if you want to see torture of the English language one need only read Plessy .v. Ferguson.

It took until 1954 and Brown for the Court to recognize that, well, that wasn't Constitutional after all.  I mean, reading is fundamental, eh?  Yeah, sure it is.

But if you think that Brown meant we'd go back through the other obviously-defective rulings, such as Miller, Wickard .et.al. you'd be wrong.  You'd be very wrong.  Nearly zero of those have ever been overturned under this entirely made up thing called "Stare Decisis" which again you will find exactly nowhere in the Constitution.

So let's talk for just a moment about ACB, Trump's nominee.

She just recently upheld the lockdowns for Covid19.  Her justification?  A Supreme Court case on mandatory vaccination against smallpox, a disease with a 30% fatality rate.

That is some one hundred times or more the risk of death from Covid-19.

Under this rubric you can expect Amy to rule that any risk of a bad outcome from any human endeavor is properly the subject of federal and state regulation.  In other words you can expect her to rule that not only must you be vaccinated against something that statistically has zero risk to you or even specifically has zero risk (e.g. you're already T-cell reactive to Covid) but in addition the local McDonalds can be ordered to withdraw its Quarter Pounder with cheese because you might get diabetes, become fat and die if you choose to eat it.  The Court may outlaw scuba diving or skydiving.  It may in fact outlaw walking across the street.

Indeed it can be under her standard of evidence ruled that no car may go more than 20mph and all must be surrounded with a 3' wide inflatable ballute so collisions will not cause serious injury or death.  Bicycles and of course motorcycles can be banned outright; you might crack your head open on the concrete.  Your only option remaining will be "rent-a-rubber-room that moves" which, of course, can be denied to you because, well, Uber decided so.  Or we can arbitrarily set reaction time testing and incorporate it into the vehicle by law so it will not start if you are tired, and if you fail a re-test while on the road on some specified interval it is disabled where you are the time until you can pass.

There is literally no barrier of pre-existing rights, evidence, relative risk .vs. harm or anything else standing between you and whatever some nutjob who happens to have a government remit may force you to do whether they were elected or not.  Down this road a cop can simply shoot you if you're speeding because it's easier than pulling you over; after all there's a 0.01% chance you MIGHT be dangerous.  The entirety of the Constitution is void in her mind as soon as someone claims some "convenience" so long as they work for any branch of the government.

That's the definition of slavery, may I remind you, and you are the slave.

Oh I know, there will be those who cheer for her nomination because, it is presumed, being Catholic she'll vote to overturn Roe.

But Roe was a dog**** decision in the first place.  There was never a threat that across all 50 states you'd not be able to obtain an abortion.  Travel has only gotten cheaper and faster since the 1960s, of course; that's what technology does when left alone -- it makes things better, faster and cheaper.  That's a good thing.  It's called productivity and is why you don't live in a straw hut.

The premise of Federalism is that this is how we sort out what is good and bad among the population through natural political experimentation.  The good results gain population and commerce while the bad ones lose.  If smoking weed is a net good in tax receipts less social and medical costs born by others then it wins.  Maybe some state says "take, make and sell whatever drugs you want but if you do, no medical insurance is obligated to pay nor will you be treated for free should you have a bad drug-related outcome -- including accidents if you're drunk or stoned at the time."   Over time this tends to shift prosperity to the good decisions and away from the bad ones, and thus the bad ones are coerced through market means to become better.  But of course the Roberts court ruled that unconstitutional with the PPACA, didn't it?  On what basis?

How do you determine "good" or "bad" objectively when it comes to political decisions?  By the fiat of nine?  That's not what the Constitution says -- it says that only the things specifically under Government purview may be legislated and enforced, and everything else is none of the government's ******ned business.

Who among us thinks that it's "good" to ban bump stocks, mufflers on a gun that protect your hearing (but we can mandate them on a car) and short-barreled shotguns but bad to ban rifles that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition?  Is not the 2nd Amendment both precise and clear in its use of the English language?  Shall not be infringed isn't clear enough?  Does the language need to be driven into your head at 3,250fps before you manage third-grade English comprehension?  Are you telling me that the Founders needed to say "if you try to infringe the right to keep and bear arms the people must immediately shoot you in the face" in order for the language to be precise enough?  I think not.  The Founders did a perfectly-adequate job.  It is you who let this bull**** go on over the last 100+ years.

Do you really think that ACB will uphold The Constitution?  Since when does an "emergency" provide for the violation of same?  Do remember that the Constitution is a document enumerating powers and a contract between the government and the people; if it's not in there the government doesn't have it.  Thus I demand you cite Article, Section and Clause that says any such so-called order by any entity of government is constitutional.  There is exactly one suspension of civil liberties and pre-existing rights allowed by the Constitution: That of Habeas Corpus, and only in the event of invasion or rebellion (Article I, Section 9.)  A virus is neither an invasion or rebellion by definition as it lacks sentience.  And incidentally, shall we talk about all those searches without particularized suspicion and a warrant which are prohibited by the 4th Amendment, also quite clear in its use of the English language -- especially since 9/11?

There is no other place or any other circumstance where the power to abrogate the Constitution is delegated to the government.  If you assert there is then find it and cite it, or sit down and shut the **** up because it is with your consent that your ass is being rammed.

As such show me where ACB is materially different in that regard than Schumer and Pelosi's wish list if you can.  Oh yes, on the specific things said Justices will ignore the Constitution they differ greatly.  But not on the substance of their actions -- only on the specific butt****ings you will suffer under each.  Whether the Stallion is white (Trump) or black (Biden) makes no damned difference when you're the one that gets mounted.

The last time I checked with what you got screwed didn't change the fact that you got screwed.

Where's my asteroid?

Go to responses (registration required to post)
 

 
Comments.......
User: Not logged on
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
Showing Page 1 of 2  First12Last
User Info Blow Up The Court -- I Don't Care in forum [Market-Ticker]
Krzelune
Posts: 8489
Incept: 2007-10-08

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Great article. I think she will be a huge disappointment. But honestly, I don't think it matters anymore.
Emupaul
Posts: 83
Incept: 2013-04-17

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Not a fan of ACB. Because she's female. So are my sisters and they are bat**** nuts.

She adopted a couple of kids... like having FIVE of your own isn't enough? "Oh, I be so cool, I adopted a couple of poor darkies to show how cool I is.

Roe? Whatever. Overturn it, please. You want an abortion, go to a state that allows abortion. Greyhound, Trailways, a freaking car... just go. Kill your baby if it gets your rocks off. But STFU about it's so important to your Woman's Rights.

We're gonna have to shoot the mother****ers, aren't we?




Pauperbear
Posts: 1693
Incept: 2008-01-22

norwalk, ct
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Correct me if I'm wrong, but neither Trump's late term appointment nor Democrats packing (assuming they have sufficient votes to modify the particulars) is unconstitutional. After all the number nine is not enshrined in the document.

It all seems tit for tat that started with Bork and thus far has culminated in Garland. Once a legislative majority starts breaking norms not enshrined in the founding documents, there is no stopping. Reid and Mcconnel are the same guy with different agendas.

The end result is likely civil unrest because if you get a party to control the executive and both legislative houses, you will have 50.1 enslaving 49.9. The bill of rights being the only protection left (well that, your weapon and anyone willing to join you.

----------
The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is.
Winston Churchill

Ingar
Posts: 100
Incept: 2017-02-14

Mobile,AL
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
I wanted to watch the local news/weather Friday a.m. but all I could find was that the national networks had taken over local programming to present a worshipfest/deification of the old Marxist hag RBGinsberger. I haven't had as good a laugh in quite some time of seeing some videos of people distraught on RBG's death, like it was completely unexpected and a national tragedy to boot. If she was as great as the Marxist media is making her out to be, why not let her lie in state in the Capitol in an open casket for a couple of months? Maybe congress wouldn't have such long gabfests. Admirers could pay $100. for a fly swat and the honor of swatting flies away from the corpse for a couple of minutes. Proceeds could go to establishing a national same-sex marriage chapel in Washington AC/DC, named after Ginsberger , of course.
Hateslawns
Posts: 4
Incept: 2018-11-09

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
"She adopted a couple of kids... like having FIVE of your own isn't enough? "Oh, I be so cool, I adopted a couple of poor darkies to show how cool I is."

"Right turn, Clyde."
Twainfan2
Posts: 198
Incept: 2018-12-04

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
IF the Dems ever do stack the court by adding several more justices.. I'm pretty sure you'll see either a hot civil war or secession (or both). That is assuming one isn't already going by then.

This all started with Marbury v Madison when the SCOTUS usurped a power (judicial review) it was never intended to have. They were never to be deciding what is or is not constitutional as far as my reading of the founders goes, esp Yates.
Emg
Posts: 595
Incept: 2012-11-20

Canada
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
"why not let her lie in state in the Capitol in an open casket for a couple of months?"

Surely it would be more traditional to stuff her, like Lenin and Mao?
M1919a2
Posts: 789
Incept: 2015-07-18

Washington
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
"Do you really think that ACB will uphold The Constitution?"

John Adams (2nd President of the United States) provides the answer you seek:

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

This may help in understanding that statement made contemporaneous with it's writing or as it is referred to today - originalist reading/application ala Scalia and who, pray tell, clerked for Scalia?

Merriam-Webster defines MORAL
a: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior
b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior a moral poem
c : conforming to a standard of right behavior i.e. took a moral position on the issue though it cost him the nomination
d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment a moral obligation
e : capable of right and wrong action

There has been NO credible FACTUAL evidence set forth to the contrary!

So much for the definition of MORAL, now RELIGIOUS

Again per

Merriam-Webster definition of RELIGIOUS

1 : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity
2 : of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances
3a : scrupulously and conscientiously faithful
b : fervent, zealous

Only blatant bigotry and prejudice set forth all unbecoming an American!

Now to COMPLETE the CIRCLE

"...the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them,...
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- ...
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

Signed: John Adams

All evidence and recommendations acquit Amy Barrett as being a MORAL and RELIGIOUS person capable of execution the office upon which she has been nominated.

QED!
Tickerguy
Posts: 168086
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Put down the crack pipe.

----------
I don't give a flying **** if you're offended.
Mangymutt
Posts: 1736
Incept: 2015-05-03

Vancouver WA
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Quote:
All evidence and recommendations acquit (free (someone) from a criminal charge by a verdict of not guilty.) Amy Barrett as being a MORAL and RELIGIOUS person capable of execution the office upon which she has been nominated.


So Amy Barrett is not guilty of "being a MORAL and RELIGIOUS person"?

Amy Barrett is not a moral or religious person?

Is that the argument?

This twisting of the Engrish Language is fun. I think instead of "packing" the courts, they should have a lottery every month and 5 random citizens (Legally here or not) get to drink booze and decide on Supreme Court Cases. That way it would be much more of a Peoples Court.

----------
"It's just a shot" - Gates
Fumei
Posts: 1068
Incept: 2019-01-08

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Emupaul, yes, we must or we let the Marxists and their ilk shoot us.

Karl, the asteroid you want will come after we are dead, if it comes at all.

Expat_tom
Posts: 42
Incept: 2020-07-06

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
M1919a2: No... No reason at all except that Scalia was just another Statist Hypocrite pretending to be pious.

Jesus had lots of words to say about hypocrisy. You can be moral and religious as Adams said and it means nothing if you are a hypocrite. It means you are a liar to your fellow man and worse to yourself about your faith.

As for cases...well Tickerguy mentioned the gun law cases. There are also drug law cases and many others where Scalia was a defender of the status quo as long as it aligned with his political ideology.

A Liberal runs us off the rails at 100 mph and a 'Conservative' does it at 80 mph, we are still dying flying over the guardrail.
Contra-2
Posts: 28
Incept: 2020-04-21

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Abraham Lincoln trashed Habeas Corpus during The War of Northern Aggression. One interesting touch is Lincoln's use of his newly-seized marshal powers to jail Francis Key Howard in Fort McHenry; no charges, no trial; just hauled off to the tank and locked in.
Francis Key Howard was the grandson of Francis Scott Key. Keep that in the back of your mind next time you hear the 'Star-Spangled Banner'
Like the Army and the National Guard, the Supreme Court provides "muscle" for the thugs in Government to do whatever the hell they want regardless of the American People.
Tickerguy
Posts: 168086
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
The "muscle" only works if the people abusing it can manage to rally enough around the flag in some form to avoid becoming the main course of a BBQ.

The reality of all such situations is that the American People are in fact supreme. This is always true in virtually every nation -- even the most-oppressive.

But you'll never hear the government admit this, and it is why you have quotes like the above about a "moral and religious" people too. You see, without the cudgel of Hell there is nothing to stop you from the cold calculus of your life and others in the balance, and that at some point you simply don't give a ****. Stripped of the threat of punishment that extends beyond a life sentence or being hanged once they threaten to do THAT there is nothing more they can threaten, is there?

----------
I don't give a flying **** if you're offended.
Whitehat
Posts: 3098
Incept: 2017-06-27

Gone West
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
reading your newest article makes me hope that one day they forget about "cruel and unusual punishment."

A main component of the original intent was protection of the American people for crimes against the country in that the political process was not and still is not perfectly clean. The rule of law could be used to oppress dissent. The same small group that could shift the politics of a country could also be seen as a tyranny by the greater supporting population. They would have had a vested interest in using the new law to suppress the dissent of a people finding curbs on certain freedoms, their cultures and ways of innovating and solving problems and disputes.

The original intent was to protect people by making that small, innovative and now powerful change imposing group accountable to its own principles. Such accountability was also to be by its own hand in full view of the people. Thus, both the newly criminal and the newly powerful by consent worked out their differences in equal standing before the law both facing equal punishment but also the possibility that the newly criminal might be correct in his rejection of the newly imposed order.

In the modern era we see the concept of criminal and the legal system more in terms of people violating the rights of others, but this is both a natural extension of original intent and a symptom of the insidious problem of assuming that the governmental functions are a utility of ultimate correctness. Because the system worked so well, people assume that it is all powerful, like a god. They do not realize that its laws and reasons for being are subject to being violated in many degrees of criminal action in that they might be subject to scrutiny and the burden of justification.

In the vernacular, the police must be forced to not only police themselves but prove the veracity of their claim to position and function and whether they function as intended. This only occurs when the people say, "No," or worse and face the criminal consequences of their actions.

This is why courts are supposed to be sacred and follow their purpose and rules to the letter. If not there is no judgement against the authorities and the criminal acts of the people are limited only to violence if they prosper and live long enough to do such.

The goal of any authoritarian government, liberal or some form of conservative, is to grind the people down to third world status so that court and government corruption is the somewhat orderly way of maintaining some form of miserable but survivable existence.

You have some technology and entertainment, and eat pretty much often, no innovation, and deep down inside you know that life is soul sucking, unfulfilling loss of self-respect and purpose and improvement and many indignities. Look familiar? A people who say, "Why bother," never bother the authorities.

?

----------
Keeping the underground economy keeps the peace and allows rebellious elements to protest their condition without actually protesting the government.

What were you doing over the years as your children's future was being destroyed? Do not expect them to fix your mistakes or tolerate you for them.
Chromehill
Posts: 73
Incept: 2010-03-03

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
@Twainfan2 - This all started when the legislative branch of the government let the executive and judiciary branches of the government usurp their power. Legislative branch is supreme per the Constitution. When the other branches of government took away power from the legislative branch, the response should have been impeachment and removal of the President or Judge.

Some judge makes a stupid ruling, impeach. That would get their attention.

As Karl said, this really comes down to We the People since we do not hold the legislative branch accountable. The legislative branch has an approval rating of about 10%, yet somehow most individual congress critters are doing a good job per their constituents.

----------
"Power, like the reproductive muscle, longs to be exercised, often without judgement or right" - Gerry Spence
Tickerguy
Posts: 168086
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Exactly.

Impeachment is a political process and, I remind you, the most-common officeholder to be impeached is...... a Judge.

----------
I don't give a flying **** if you're offended.
M1919a2
Posts: 789
Incept: 2015-07-18

Washington
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Merriam-Webster defines "acquit"

Definition of acquit

transitive verb

1 : to discharge completely (as from an accusation or obligation) - The court acquitted the prisoner.

2 : to conduct (oneself) usually satisfactorily especially under stress - The recruits acquitted themselves like veterans.

3a archaic : to pay off (something, such as a claim or debt)
b obsolete : repay, requite

#2 is the correct usage in the context of the discussion.

The comment is abusive, meant to mislead!

Tickerguy
Posts: 168086
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Double meh.

----------
I don't give a flying **** if you're offended.
Thelazer
Posts: 411
Incept: 2009-05-11

Davenport, Fl
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Either way, if we could just get on with Civil war 2.0 and get over it.

I'm kinda sick of just waiting for "the next thing.." over and over again.

Twainfan2
Posts: 198
Incept: 2018-12-04

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
As for Scalia (on guns) --- ""Some [limits] undoubtedly are [permissible], because there were some that were acknowledged at the time" the Constitution was written, he said." **** him with a rusty chainsaw. He was wholly in favor of govt restricting the rights of the individual. Just like the old "you can't yell fire in a theater" restriction bull****. Govt has no legal authority to restrict any right in any way. The remedy for yelling fire in a theater is for the theater owners to post rules about behavior in their theaters. If you break those rules then they can have you held responsible for damages caused.

Also on John Adams... **** him too. He and his buddy Hamilton were Statists of the highest order. Had Hamilton gotten his way we'd have gotten his version of England's govt.

Barrett will end up just like all the rest... she supported the lockdowns. She wont rule on what the Constitution actually says (or what the Framers actually wrote about it's meaning) but rather on her ideology.
Burya_rubenstein
Posts: 1805
Incept: 2007-08-08

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Well, I'm all for blowing up the Court (among other things).
Tickerguy
Posts: 168086
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Exactly.

**** Scalia with a rusty chainsaw. That he's worm food is just fine with me.

----------
I don't give a flying **** if you're offended.
Pete_brewster
Posts: 89
Incept: 2015-12-10

Canada
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
"...by definition time has value and therefore to be "moderate" the long term interest rate must be somewhat above the expansion rate of the economy over the same period of time."

So if long-term rates are "moderate," this is a tacit admission that the economies of the western world have been shrinking or stagnant since 2008, because everything that could be outsourced to China has been, and only in China is it possible to actually build anything in a reasonable amount of time.
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
Showing Page 1 of 2  First12Last