Kansas Crimson

ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Jun 17, 2021 3:07 pm I think 99’s gripe is a whole different 1st amendment question that I too wish would be brought:


Why should churches be exempt from taxes?

If they are, why should they be eligible to receive taxpayer handouts for anything from adoption services to covid relief?

“make no law respecting an establishment of religion” comes before “prohibit the free exercise thereof”

ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Jun 17, 2021 3:13 pm Oh yea, I suppose.

But heck, many of the constitutional questions would be moot if they’d just open a criminal investigation into the church’s systemic child molestation.

The president’s decision in April to stand up this commission was no isolated event. Naked attempts to bully judges have become a core priority for today’s Democratic Party.

Early last year, my Democratic counterpart, Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), joined activists on the steps of the Supreme Court and threatened two justices by name should they disappoint liberals with a particular ruling.

A few months before that, as The Post reported, sitting Senate Democrats, including the now-chairman of the Judiciary Committee, sent the court an outrageous amicus brief that read like a ransom note from junior-varsity mafiosos. “The Supreme Court is not well,” they threatened, “and the people know it. Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured. …’”

In other words: Nice independent judiciary you’ve got there. Sure would be a shame if something happened to it.

[...]

Even if Democrats fail at structurally changing the court, they could still succeed at applying improper pressure. The left wants to prey on justices’ instincts to protect their institution by having “court reform” hang over them like a sword of Damocles. The left hopes that a manufactured cloud of fake concerns about the court’s legitimacy may be enough to change which cases the court decides to hear, how it hears them and what rulings it hands down.

But if the justices fell into Democrats’ trap and let political threats change legal outcomes, they would not be shoring up their institution, but undermining it. It would poison the actual source of the court’s legitimacy — its impartiality. Moreover, appeasement would not even end the threats and reckless tactics. It would guarantee more. Hostage-takers will not settle for half a loaf.

The Senate exists to defeat shortsighted proposals and protect our institutions from structural vandalism. That is our job. The American people need their judges to do theirs: follow the law wherever it may lead, independent and unafraid.

Biden campaigned on unity and moderation. He won a close victory with an evenly split Senate and negative coattails in the House.

As this month’s elections confirmed, Americans did not hand Democrats any mandate to let radicals transform the country. And they certainly have no mandate to permanently damage the rule of law.

BasketballJayhawk wrote: ↑Wed Dec 01, 2021 6:46 pm How can we be sure the fetus doesn't want to be aborted?

zsn wrote: ↑Wed Dec 01, 2021 8:31 pm In a very cynical way I’m rooting for the SCOTUS to overturn Roe and kick it to the States. We’ll have a clear sorting out of pro-choice and forced-birth States. More importantly it would remove one of two or three things which Republicans actually want to work on. This way the main thing they would be left with is White Supremacy. It would likely stop bringing the single issue voters to the polls, and at least then the extremists like MTG and Boebert will stop getting elected