If it was anyone else but Pelosi I would say this smacks of desperation but coming from her, “If you breathe air, drink water, eat food, take medicine, or in any other way interact with the courts, this is a very bad decision.” is pretty much just her normal level of stupidity. I don’t joke when I say I think she must have done some sort of something in the 60’s that altered her mind. It obviously doesn’t function like a normal mind does. Even ordinary leftists shake their head in despair when she speaks. Or do they?
The thing bringing fear to Pelosi hit her so hard that she dug deep and came up with every single scare tactic in the left’s bag of tricks. You know, sometimes just one fear isn’t enough.
How great the fear preached tells us more about the preacher than the thing preached against.
Think of it like a mathematical formula where the more afraid the left is of something the more they tell you to be afraid. You become a mirror of their own fear. So for Pelosi to toss out the kitchen sink of fears like that means she must be terrified.
But of what is Pelosi so Afraid?
What she was reacting to was the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court of the United States. By all accounts he feels justices should follow the constitution. I think that too. That shouldn’t be thought of as an extreme position for a justice to take but it seems that it is. At least to Pelosi it is.
Like all people in power she’s afraid to lose her power. Because Gorsuch is a constitutionalist and the constitution was designed specifically to limit the power of the government she knows that any true and honest following of it will, by default limit her power and the power of all seeking it. What she is afraid of is that the constitution will do its job.
In a moment of fear she revealed so much. She revealed that she wants power, she revealed that the Supreme Court has been giving that power, she revealed the Constitution restricts power and that she is well aware that is its intent and she revealed that she does not respect that intent.
Of course she’s not alone in that. The left has long said that they think of the Constitution as a “living document”. That means one that changes, one with a meaning that can be adapted to modern times. As the times change well, so does the Constitution. Sure, it once limited the power of the federal government and granted all other rights not specified to the states but now, now that same document means the federal government supersedes the states. That’s a convenient point of view for them.
The Constitution is not History
Trump has nominated someone to the Supreme Court who does not feel the same way. He sees the document as one that should be viewed through the lens of history not modernity. It’s perhaps a paradox in that way. It’s only through seeing it through history’s eyes that the Constitution doesn’t become history. The document was created as a limiter, a check valve as it were designed as a choke point for power. It was meant to do the exact thing that Pelosi fears it will do, stop her.
I think stopping Pelosi and her ilk is exactly what we need as country. She’s the most visible and perhaps vocal example of the problem that has been plaguing us which is encapsulated in how Obamacare was put though. It wasn’t about what the law would do but rather what it represented. She made that clear when she indicated she didn’t even bother to read it. The only thing she cared about was the fact that the law handed leftists a long envisioned victory, a victory a constitutionally flexible court let them keep. They were happy with that. But with Ginsberg and other aging and Trump in power, he’s sent a clear message with his first of what will likely be several nominees, that he plans on placing young jurists who believe in the original purpose of the Constitution.
The States of Things
That purpose was to protect you and I from “them”. They being any and all who would take power away from the people and gather it for government or make it so the states were small rather than the states being the primary holders of authority in the country. The federal government was created with limited power, with a few powers, and all the other powers were only for the states. Individual little countries with their own governments, leaders, and methodologies based on the needs and wants of their communities. Just like in the EU where a distant foreign power is unable to control what happens in England, Washington DC is, to most of the US, a distant power, no more able to understand the needs of people in New Mexico and Maine than the EU can England.
Our system of government was designed to be one of representation in order to compensate for this fact, a fact that the Founders understood all too well. Something happened along the way to make their representation ineffectual, we became a country of parties. The people sent to DC to represent us instead went to represent the Democrats or the Republicans. Inasmuch as the Constitution is about limiting power and those seeking power will do anything to obtain it, they found a way around it. They just stopped representing the people and getting to and staying in Washington DC became their goal.
Though I don’t agree that the Constitution is a living breathing document that changes with the whims of the times the Founding Fathers did include a way to change it – amendments. They’ve been used for good (the bill of rights) and ill (prohibition) and I think it’s time we use them again to make a change to this great document. A change in keeping with its true intent. It’s interesting how prohibition failed so miserably and it was an amendment contrary to the purpose of the document. It took freedom rather than protected it. The change I suggest is a limit on the number of terms law makers can serve. This is a change that will need to be made, not in the courts, not in the halls of DC, but using the process of a Constitutional Convention which can be called for by the governors of the various states. I fear this is the only way to get it done since those who have power fear to lose it and those in DC will not willingly limit their largess. It will be up to the people to limit the government through concerted effort of loud voice placed on those local officials who can call for such a convention and a change to our founding document. Not a change like the leftists produce through fiat but one that is honestly and truly the will of the people.
One nominee to the Supreme Court, or two, or maybe even three, isn’t going to do it. The damage has been done and the only way to undo it is to give law makers no excuse for not doing their intended jobs. If they cannot gain power from DC then those who go will go – I hope – for the real intent of doing the job of representation. Give them no reason other than that to go and better men will step forward.
CNN has rained fire on Donald Trump’s tweets for being extremely unfair. But on Tuesday night, CNN host Jake Tapper asked Nancy Pelosi her take on the brand-new Neil Gorsuch nomination to the Supreme Court, and she made a wild overstatement: “If you breathe air, drink water, eat food, take medicine, or in any other way interact with the courts, this is a very bad decision.” Wouldn’t it seem natural to ask Pelosi how precisely it is that Gorsuch opposes air, water, food, and medicine? But Tapper must moved along to the process question of how the Democratic Party should handle the pick.