What has Judge Napolitano said about SCOTUS Obamacare decision?

[TheTexan]

The American Revolution.

That's not politics. Again, for the sake of semantic clarity,

politics = trying to work with your opponents to come to an agreeable solution
non-politics = anything else

The american revolution was successful specifically because it wasn't politics... are you suggesting that we do a revolution Matt Collins?

 

[Matt Collins]

That's not politics. Again, for the sake of semantic clarity,

politics = trying to work with your opponents to come to an agreeable solution
non-politics = anything else

The american revolution was successful specifically because it wasn't politics... are you suggesting that we do a revolution Matt Collins?

You must not understand your history, the American Revolution, as with any revolution, was 100% politics! You should study how much debating etc it took for them to arrive where they did.

And, politics is defined as the adjudication of power. Politics is how society decides who has power, how much, and where. It's human nature.

 

[TheTexan]

You must not understand your history, the American Revolution, as with any revolution, was 100% politics! You should study how much debating etc it took for them to arrive where they did.

And, politics is defined as the adjudication of power. Politics is how society decides who has power, how much, and where. It's human nature.

Semantics. Your definition of "Politics" apparently includes anything and everything involving people. Which isn't a very useful definition. Could you please spare me the semantic games and just either go along with my definition, or make a point of substance?

Revolution is an entirely different strategy than running candidates for election. Plain and simple.

 

[Matt Collins]

Semantics. Your definition of "Politics" apparently includes anything and everything involving people.

It is! Politics is human nature. Whenever you have more than 1 person there is politics involved. Try being a member of a club, or a church, or a civic organization, or having multiple roomates, etc.

 

[TheTexan]

It is! Politics is human nature. Whenever you have more than 1 person there is politics involved. Try being a member of a club, or a church, or a civic organization, or having multiple roomates, etc.

Right. But that's a useless definition, in the scope of this discussion. Allow me to rephrase the question, just to get around this semantics:

Still waiting for an example in history of where Congress or other democratically elected government entity has, through their votes over a period of time, successfully reversed the advance of tyranny, for everybody, and not select groups

 

[Matt Collins]

Still waiting for an example in history of where Congress or other democratically elected government entity has, through their votes over a period of time, successfully reversed the advance of tyranny, for everybody, and not select groups

Virginia House of Burgesses, the Continental Congress, or most of the other colonies.

 

[TheTexan]

Virginia House of Burgesses

You'll have to be more specific. Was it the creation of the Virginia House of Burgesses that you're referring to, or the actions of the House of Burgesses itself?

, the Continental Congress, or most of the other colonies.

Passing a vote to start a revolution is not what got results. The revolution itself is what got the results.

 

[Matt Collins]

You'll have to be more specific. Was it the creation of the Virginia House of Burgesses that you're referring to, or the actions of the House of Burgesses itself?



Passing a vote to start a revolution is not what got results. The revolution itself is what got the results.

That's where it started. You asked for an example, and I gave you two.

 

[TheTexan]

That's where it started. You asked for an example, and I gave you two.

The second is not an example - it led to the Revolutionary War, which proves my point, not yours.

The first I still need clarification on how you think that was an advancement of liberty over time, because there's two ways to interpret it. The creation of the House itself, or the actions of the House...

both I can easily refute but I have to know which to refute.

 

[TheTexan]

If you want to say that politics is a possible means to a productive non-political end (ie, Continental Congress), I can agree with that.

If you want to say that politics itself is useful, that's where I disagree.

(Note, Matt, I'm using my definition of politics here, please don't give me more semantics)

 

[davidkachel]

This discussion has taken a turn for the surreal. The American revolution was not "political". It involved nothing more that launching a whole lot of large American lead projectiles through a whole lot of British red woolen coats with sufficient repetition to convince the occupants of said coats, and of a throne in England, to lose interest in keeping us as their slaves: the one and ONLY way to rid oneself of a tyrant.

Watched any news programs the past couple of years? Seen any tyrants torn literally limb from limb? Yet there sits Assad, determined he will not give up power despite the handwriting on the wall that should clearly tell him he can expect the same end as Khadaffi if he doesn't get out. Tyrants NEVER, EVER learn. And no tyranny has EVER been VOTED away! I mean, that's just silly. By definition, a tyranny is not subject to the will of the people.

If you can get rid of it through politics, it wasn't a tyranny in the first place.

This discussion has grown way too silly and is now completely pointless. It is plain Mr. Collins would remain in lala land even if the Gestapo hauled him off tonight and spent the next year beating him senseless.

I can't help but be reminded of the couple who went to Alaska and spent months living in the middle of a group of grizzly bears, insisting the bears were really harmless and that their actions were proving it. This went on for a long time. Until the bears woke up peckish one day and ate the two morons for breakfast. There is no doubt in my mind that the last thought of both of these geniuses was about how they might reason with the bears.

 

[Matt Collins]

If you want to say that politics itself is useful, that's where I disagree.

It doesn't matter, it's human nature, it exists, it always has, it always will, so if you want to do anything to advance liberty, you had better learn to work through it.

 

[Matt Collins]

The American revolution was not "political".

Your ignorance of history is glaring!

 

[davidkachel]

Your ignorance of history is glaring!

Apparently everyone here is ignorant of history but you.

 

[Matt Collins]

Senator H.L. Richardson, author of Confrontational Politics:

“It is most ironic. Those who hate big government and purportedlyadvocate local control don’t participate at the level wherethey can have the most immediate impact.”

The left in this country grasped long ago that getting elected locally is the starting point, the farm system to higher office. Thatis why they have sought out and filled seats on school boards,city and county councils all across this nation.

While not always the case, usually these are the positions where you have the best opportunity of being competitive with a chance to win.

 

[specsaregood]

Perhaps so. The Supreme Court is not granted the power of judicial review by the Constitution. They just assumed power that was not granted to them. This move clearly shows that they do not intend to use that power now. It also fits the narrative that Judge Andrew Napolitano mentioned in his response. "... it (the court) thinks of how generations later and even centuries later ... lawyers and judges, obviously as yet unborn, will look back on this day, and ascertain their intellectual honesty".

The time is ripe for the people and the States to reclaim what is rightfully their Constitutional power.


The Supreme Court and Judicial Review

I miss Tavlyr. Anybody know where he has wandered off to?