Friday, November 13, 2020

Guess who sounds just like your crazy, ranting, Trump cultist neighbor next door? He's a Justice out to protect our feelings!!!

Samuel Alito!!! It is now clear Democrats need to expand the Supreme Court for the sake of saving our nation from the Supreme Courts whining babies. So this is what conservatives call "textualism?" 

Protecting the Feelings of People's Racist Bigoted Speech, that's Alito's real Constitutional Test: The most frightening revelation was Alito's thought process, conclusions that have nothing to do with the Constitution, but more to do with protecting conservative speech.

No one restricting the speech of bigots and racists. It's just the inevitable consequences of owning your position that Alito objects to. If anything, Alito really wants to silence the speech of those calling out bigotry and racism.

Same-sex marriage? (These days,) “you can’t say that marriage is a union between one man and one woman” without fear of reprisal from schools, government and employers, Alito said.

“Until very recently, that’s what the vast majority of Americans thought. Now it’s considered bigotry,” he said, adding: “One of the great challenges for the Supreme Court going forward will be to protect freedom of speech.”

Uh, we should protect speech from...people judging you, and holding a person responsible for their opinion? And that's where in the Constitution, snowflake? 

Other curious holes in Alito's textural judgement: 
1. He suggested there was no actual harm in a Colorado bakery refusing to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, noting the couple “was given a free cake by another bakery, and celebrity chefs have jumped to the couple’s defense."

2. He suggested lawmakers had given too much deference to “experts.” He suggestively alluded to the idea that it was done so that “policy-making would become more ‘scientific’ " — a section that could certainly be read today to reflect conservative resistance to the advice of medical experts like Anthony S. Fauci: "And what have we seen in the pandemic? Sweeping restrictions imposed for the most part under statutes that confer enormous executive discretion."
Here's more:
SlateOn Thursday night, Justice Sam Alito delivered the keynote address at this year’s all-virtual Federalist Society National Lawyers Convention … These comments revealed early on that Alito would not be abiding by the usual ethics rules, which require judges to remain impartial and avoid any appearance of bias. The rest of his speech served as a burn book for many cases he has participated in, particularly those in which he dissented. Remarkably, Alito did not just grouse about the outcome of certain cases, but the political context of those decisions, and the broader cultural and political forces behind them. 
The government’s response to COVID-19, Alito continued, has “highlighted disturbing trends that were already present before the virus struck.” He complained about lawmaking by an “elite group of appointed experts,” citing not just COVID rules but the entire regulatory framework of the federal government.

Alito also disparaged Washington state for requiring pharmacies to provide emergency contraception—which, he claimed, “destroys an embryo after fertilization.” (That is false.) Finally, Alito rebuked Colorado for attempting to compel Jack Phillips to bake a cake for a same-sex couple.* He noted that the couple was given a free cake and supported by “celebrity chefs.”

1 comment:

  1. I am posting the email of one disturbed Cult45 heavy breather who can't quite hit the comment button under my blog posts.

    The thing is, these kinds of comments are oddly similar for so many people I've talked to who have also received disturbing reactions on social media sites, even snail mail. The message is clear from these very bad losers, don't believe what your actually seeing...:

    "Again the propaganda whore strikes!

    Guess who sounds just like your ranting Trump cultist neighbor next door? He's a Justice too...

    What a hypocritical bigot! Never an article on all the Democratic justices that have worn their activism on their sleeve. At least two dozen or so that are very public about it. Even, The late justice Ginsburg was very vocal about her activism on many subjects.

    Have you read some of her comments that have been documented over the years. That's right you don't do any investigative work. You're just a schmuck with an opinion

    Justice Alito's words regarding coronavirus are absolutely true. Our constitutional rights are being violated. Even people supporting the coronavirus response are saying it violates our constitutional rights. They are just using the rationalization that we're in a Covid emergency. Nothing in our Constitution or Bill of Rights indicates you can do this. Then you have the fact that the SCIENCE continues to show the mortality rate for Covid ID is less than the flu (CDC numbers not mind), our Covid response is hurting/killing more people than the virus, and we have therapeutics.

    On Jack Phillips, that was an obvious violation of Jack's rights because no one is compelled to do anything for anyone. And I'd make that statement if someone was violating your rights even though I totally disagree with you on almost everything. But it's every Judges right/duty to issue an opinion whether they're are the majority or minority opinion that's part of the judicial process.

    Seems like the only one who's actually a ranting cultist is you. But just keep on with your projection. It's showing everyone who you really are.