Highlander offered an excellent rebuttal to raskputin's lame

Posted on: April 15, 2021 at 09:35:12 CT

attempt to justify expanding the court earlier this morning.

Raskputin regurgitated some nonsensical talking points from NPR or wherever about a more centrist court (tacitly admitting that it has been politicized) and some crap about representing the country, via identity politics i assume.

Highlander replied:

"Please explain the value of the judiciary 'reflecting the
nation'. Is the judiciary there to represent the people or is it there judge the Constitutionality of laws?

Does being black, Hispanic or female give any special insight into the Constitution?

It sounds like you are looking for activist, not legal experts."

.....

Points well made as usual by highlander. Questions unanswered by raskputin.

I can think of no better example of the irrelevance of race, ideology or life experiences, and hence the presumed benefits of having a "wise latina" in place than on the supreme court. Or any court, really.

Is a colored person more sensitive to criminals and criminality and if so, is that good? Are there reasons to rob a bank or beat someone into a coma once race is considered in the process? Is an irrational fear of the cops a legitimate defense for young black males resisting arrest or fleeing the cops?

Is any of this found in the constitution...?

Is a wise latina, aka a lesbian gorilla, more sensitive to the plight of poor illegal immigrants and should that color her interpretation of the law and the constitution?

Should stuttering joe put some gaze and some transcrazy people on the court to offer their life experiences regarding gaze and the crazed?

The constitution says what it says. The race, sex, sexual preference or culture of the person reading the document should not influence the interpretation of the meaning of the document.

But libs say not only that it does, but it must. Hence the need for wise latinas.

Liberals want the court to make laws, like granting the right to an abortio (that was an example of a bad decision, this is not an abortion thread).

And by the way, our brilliant and courageous legislators are perfectly fine with the court making the laws. People elected to congress can then stick to making speeches, signaling their virtue, redefining words as necessary and "evolving" on issues to further their stupid careers.

It would be great if computers could handle SCOTUS cases. Seriously. Race and sex and life experiences have no value here.

None.

Emotion has no place in ruling by the supreme court. The poor immigrant sneaked into this country to make a better life for his family. Someone called him an bad name so he killed the guy.

A wise latina would understand the plight of the illegal alien and be sympathetic.

A computer would not.

I anxiously await the following responses by The Idiot and his idiots:


The Idiot: lol
Asstray: lol
Heifer: tl/dr
Meat: lol

And the no government idiots will not read the entire post, and while being against governments will offer a lecture on the constitution.

Edited by hokie at 10:07:59 on 04/15/21