Shot in the Dark

Fair Is Fair

Liberals insist Citizens United was wrongly decided and must be overturned.  Really?  The Supreme Court made a mistake?  A mistaken decision must be overturned? 
Okay, I’m good with that.  But Citizens United concerns a narrow area of free speech as it applies to political campaigns. Let’s start with cases that have broader societal impact, because the errors those cases cause are much greater.  
Miranda v. Arizona
Roe v. Wade
Obergefell v. Hodges
Each of these stole the power of self-government from the states, where it rightfully belongs.  Let’s reverse all of them, then we can discuss why Hillary should be exempt from criticism. 
Joe Doakes

You notice, over time, how “logical consistency” isn’t much of a prioriity to Big Left.

Posted

in

, , ,

by

Mitch Berg

Tags:

Comments

6 responses to “Fair Is Fair”

  1. Greg Avatar
    Greg

    Definition: Logical Consistency

    noun

    Everything and anything that advances the agenda.

  2. John Kraephammer Avatar
    John Kraephammer

    I’ve gone through life with no sense conservatives had an axe to grind about Miranda.

  3. kinlaw Avatar
    kinlaw

    Well said Greg.

  4. Joe Doakes Avatar
    Joe Doakes

    Miranda is included because it’s a blatant example of judicial activism, like the other cases mentioned. Sadly, Miranda has been around so long and is so deeply ingrained in Hollywood culture that most people today don’t even realize how bad the decision is, it’s just part of the background scenery. The fish are not aware of the water.

    Miranda is akin to the National Firearms Act of 1934 that regulated short-barreled shotguns, silencers and machine guns. Nowadays, we’re so used to it that it never occurs to us to ask whether those regulations were unconstitutional infringements. And besides, the Supreme Court said they were okay in the Miller case, right? Yes, but we’re talking about mistakes, about cases that were wrongly decided. The fact the Miller case was wrongly decided long ago doesn’t convert it into rightly decided, it just makes Miller a long-standing injustice.

    “Judicial activism” is making up stuff out of whole cloth to advance The Narrative, then justifying your action by claiming the new “right” is required by the Constitution. The power to do that was not granted to the Supreme Court in the Constitution, it was stolen from Congress and The People in Marbury v. Madison.

    Add that one to the list.

  5. jdm Avatar
    jdm

    Thanks, JD. I’m old enough to remember the grumblings about Miranda, but without any of the details.

  6. Greg Avatar
    Greg

    The purpose of Miranda was to ensure that the accused know their rights…….kinda like how DISH enlightens you to the terms of their contract before you agree to it.

    You do not have the right to cancel..ever.

    If your service is interrupted, that’s too damned bad.

    If you are a snowbird you have to buy two subscriptions, even though we tell you different.

    We can jack your rate at any time and you have to say “thank you for jacking my rate.”

    By agreeing to this contract, you realize that you have obligations but we don’t.

    Oh by the way, did we tell you that you don’t have the right to cancel your contract..ever?

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.