Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Quote of the Week: Your Rights
“Your rights get lost when you depart from the original meaning. And then sometimes, wait, it gets worse. Not only does it take stuff away, it puts stuff in there that isn’t.” — Justice Neil Gorsuch
Given this week’s Supreme Court hearings, this quote seemed appropriate. Especially since several Justices put stuff in that isn’t there. Such as statements about 100,000 kids being hospitalized for Covid with many on ventilators. Or that another justice claimed that there were 750 million new cases of Omicron just yesterday. (Even worldwide, that means close to 1/10 of the global population contracted Omicron just this week. In the US? Everyone caught it twice yesterday.) These are the minds that will be deciding the fate of millions. I don’t know if that scares you. It certainly scares me.
The job of the legislature is to pass laws consistent with the original meaning of the Constitution. The job of the officers of the government of the United States is to faithfully execute laws consistent with the original meaning of the Constitution. The job of the courts is to interpret the laws passed consistent with the original meaning of the Constitution. To do otherwise is to institute a form of judicial Calvinball, where the rules fit the whims of individual legislators, officers, and jurists. Down that road leads to withdrawal of the consent of the people.
Published in Law
With such a terrible handle on numbers and statistics, I wouldn’t want these minds even deciding the fate of my kid’s diaper schedule. Of course they are both full of the same stuff.
We’re well past that, I’d say. The glaring example for me was Obamacare passed by procedural trickery when the majority of Americans opposed it.
When did Gorsuch say this? Was it from this week?
During his confirmation hearings. It’s been in my collection of quotes since then.
My hope is that the Justices’ noses are so deeply embedded in the Constitution and precedents that they are unaware of what is going on in the outside world; in other words, they are the victims of ignorance and not stupidity.
750 million cases in one day kinda goes beyond ignorance. It’s not credible. It is an illustration of either innumeracy or senility.
Didn’t Joe Biden have a similar innumerate comment when he killed off nearly the entire US population from COVID during the campaign?
Yes, but in his case, I suspect it was a Freudian slip. He wouldn’t mind replacing the electorate with a more docile one, more dependent on the government.
Lady Blind Justice
Could it have been a case of simply misspeaking?
Somehow lefties always misspeak in a way that advances their fear-agenda. It works on at least half the population.
Benefit of the doubt should go both ways… I can’t recall a single instance where Trump was referred to as misspeaking.
Yes it absolutely should. But ought I deny it because Trump was denied it? How many wrongs does it take to make a right?
They think of us as peons.
This is a fair point Chuck. But only when the rules of engagement are fair. The left has long since given up on any fairness doctrine when it comes to speech, civility, virtue or even reason. All of which are trademarks of a good conservative. Actually they are trademarks of a working and functional society.
In a great many ways the left uses our kindness and cordiality against us. And they wield it quite well to accomplish their endgame. From a purely Sun Tzu sort of perspective, you have to admire their tenacity and commitment.
But their endgame is the destruction of the very institutions that allow us to be civil. That allow us to live with freedoms of speech and faith. That allow concepts like benefit of the doubt to even exist. We enjoy Reagan and Solzhenitsyn. We take them seriously but we need to take them literally.
To be honest, it’s why DJT was so effective. In principle I loathe his coarseness, brashness, distasteful expressions (add your pejorative here). But I understood their purpose. The battle lines of public discourse had been skewed for too long and DJT was in many ways the last line of defense.
I saw similarities with DJT China trade policy and tariffs. In principle every conservative believes in free trade. But it only works with a level playing field. Since the Clinton administration, conservatives have lamented China’s built-in advantages with currency manipulation, unfair labor practices, human rights violations, etc. Those same conservatives threw Trump under the bus when he used tariffs to even the playing field. The principle itself became an idol. Dying on principle that is an idol isn’t dignity, it’s foolishness.
At this point, ridicule is an acceptable tool in the arsenal of debate with the shameless left. I hold out great hope we will return to civil discourse. I am willing to put away the verbal slings and daggers but only until such time as the left will again engage in good faith discussions. Today, benefit of the doubt for those on the left, is a luxury I cannot afford to offer.
Amen! Well put.
I’m reminded of Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings where she said that what she had to offer was that she would presumably be a wise Latina.
One of the things that implies is that the law is secondary to her as a judge, and that it’s more important to do the right thing, ignoring the law when necessary. But if she’s going to do that, she should at least get her facts right.
During hearings, she has not been arguing the law, and even claims to not understand the separation of powers.
But then, we knew what we were getting at the time, which is why I didn’t think she belonged on the bench, whatever level judgeship it was.
I am, at the least, sympathetic to this. Nevertheless, “shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? May it never be!” I cannot in good conscience say Trump or Thomas misspoke if I will not say Sotomayor misspoke. Was the speaker just flat out lying (“sin is a reproach to any people”), or ignorant (hard to understand in this instance), or careless, or did they simply say the wrong word? You said, “I hold out great hope we will return to civil discourse.” Actually, sadly, I don’t – however, I sincerely hope I’m wrong. But if it is to be, it starts with you, me, and each one of us as inividuals.
And with this I truly sympathize. Are there points at which grace and charity expire when dealing with individuals? Not permanently, mind you, but at least temporarily? It is a difficult and sobering question but one that I think needs addressing. We saw Christ himself display righteous anger. It wasn’t anger toward the person/people but anger at the sin. Even using ridicule toward the Pharisees and to awaken His own disciples to their dullness.
I wouldn’t dare set Trump’s nature as a standard for discourse but what is the proper response to being ‘literally’ compared to one the most evil men to ever exist: Hitler? Repeatedly. This is true for every conservative presidential candidate since Reagan. And thus, by extension, anyone who supports conservatives are Nazi equivalents. Without uniform condemnation from the left. It is accepted with a wink-wink, nod-nod. What non-violent tools are available at this point to awaken the left from such dangerous rhetoric? The greater sin in my opinion would be not making the proper stand against these destructive practices.
We can’t claim to look into people’s hearts or know with certainty their intent. But isn’t it reasonable to infer motive after extended patterns of behavior produce consistent results? In this specific case, the numbers that were misspoken are so egregiously out of line with a cursory knowledge of US population or current COVID realities, it stretches credulity not to assign some ulterior motive. Especially in light of these Justices’ (Sotomayor and Breyer) previous political musings during opinions.
Mock them mercilessly. Laugh at them until they cry. Then laugh at them for crying.
I shall leave God’s justice to God, should He exist. Meanwhile we have a fight to win down here.
Whether it’s an intentional lie or simple ignorance matters not to me. The effect is the same. It engenders panic in the populace and gives people with nefarious (totalitarian) ambitions the rationale they seek to justify their lawlessness and ruthlessness. I don’t judge intentions, I judge fruits.
Besides, a “wise” person would refrain from speaking in such ignorance. She deserves all the criticism she’s getting, but unfortunately, it is probably only shared in the conservative echo chamber, and low-info liberals everywhere will glom onto it as if it’s factual.