House of Eratosthenes

[House Minority Leader Nancy] Pelosi, in reference to how the nine-judge court will rule, said, “6-3. That’s it. 6-3.”

She was then asked why she was so confident about her prediction, “Do you have a crystal ball or what is your confidence — you wrote the bill but why do you have this confidence?”

Pelosi said: “Because I know the Constitution. This bill is ironclad. It is ironclad.”

“Nobody was frivolous with the Constitution and the health of the American people in writing the bill,” she said. “So, that’s where my confidence springs from, the merit of the bill and the nature of the Constitution.”

Well…it’s not exactly a remote possibility. If I understand her correctly, she’s predicting Anthony Kennedy will do what she wants and so will Chief Justice Roberts. It’s the way she’s concluding it that is objectionable. Progressives have a way of doing this, they pick out the scenario that is preferred, and just repeat it over and over again. By “preferred” I do not mean “optimistic.” The Earth becoming a dry, burned out, uninhabitable husk due to human activity, with yet-to-be-born young people crying out in anguished indignation to the oldsters who are around today, “Why did you let this happen??” and the oldsters reflecting sadly on how much they suck, as humanity flickers out of existence like an oxygen-starved candle flame…that is one of their preferred outcomes. Which they “make” true, simply by repeating it with great flourishing confidence. It’s really how they “know” just about every little thing they think they know, all the way down the line…

…The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so. — Ronald Reagan (link goes to page that automatically plays a sound clip).

But the vote is going to be six-three. That is what will happen…also, your kitty cat has a good feeling, today’s the day she will catch the red dot. She can feel it in her whiskers.

she knows it…because she knows the Constitution.

Problem is, the “Constitution” she knows is the one that only exists in liberals’ heads…. the one where the 2nd Amendment requires a ban on handguns and the 4th contains a gay marriage proviso.

This is, I think, something rather new in American politics — this insistence that not only will X happen, but it will, nay, must happen because of Y. They’ve got to be right on both the substance and the style.

For instance: There are lots of arguments for something like ObamaCare. You could push it on ethical grounds, on utilitarian grounds, even on economic grounds. Some of these have more heft than others, but an argument like “a few hundred extra dollars a year in taxes and regulations is a small price to pay for an America where even the least of us has access to a level of basic care” is a respectable one, which demands a cogent and respectful answer.

But nuh-uh — the left ain’t having that, no sir, no way. America requires ObamaCare because the Constitution itself requires ObamaCare. That’s the hill they’ve chosen to die on, and if you don’t agree, you’re not only a racist, but you hate the Constitution.

Or cf. our infamous discussion with our Borg-collective friend. This and that will happen, because Science.

Ace of Spades suggests that the word “liberal” has lost all meaning, and that we should simply start calling them what they are: Authoritarian socialists. When I see things like this, I tend to agree.
- Severian | 06/01/2012 @ 05:43
Absolutely, Sev. We’re far more liberal than any of these jokers. It’s why I use “leftist” or “progressive” whenever possible. It’s a long-term Marxist strategy to claim and then devalue terms like “democracy” and “liberty/liberated” and “the people”. How many of these anarcho-Commie noodges call themselves “People’s Democratic Liberated Front” or such? The idea is that the idea of democracy and liberty itself takes an enormous hit, so that people stop thinking clearly about what those things actually stand for. “Liberal”? The term is so ruined for the actual freedom of humanity that it needs extensive shoring up and explanation before it can be used properly – and that’s exactly the point to the Left.

On this particular topic, I actually hope The Nance is right, and that the vote is 6-3…. against. That would be Rod Serling-level karma right there.
- nightfly | 06/01/2012 @ 09:08
How do I know, that she of the enormous gavel, of the Tea Partier’s are “Nazis“, that the Iraq War was lost, that she was never informed about “enhanced interrogation techniques” included water boarding, that “We must pass the healthcare bill so that we can find out what’s in it”, that “500 million Americans (will) lose their jobs”,
that “the rich won’t pay taxes because they want to be immortal”, that “my flagship issue as speaker of the House and of this 110th Congress has been to reduce our dependence on foreign oil” (regarding NOT having an up or down vote about DOMESTIC drilling), that unemployment benefits stimulate economy and create jobs, that “We must pass the healthcare bill so that we can find out what’s in it”…

I do I absolutely know that Pelosi is wrong…just a hunch.
- tim | 06/01/2012 @ 09:36
Nancy is an interesting character for her unusual deficit of wit and intelligence. I wish all my enemies shared that. But she lifted what she could, which was her face.
- xlibrl | 06/03/2012 @ 10:50
and the 4th contains a gay marriage proviso.

I had one guy try to tell me that the NINTH Amendment contained a mandate for gay marriage. That’s the one promising equal protection under the laws.

It took me all of five seconds to point out that in no state are heterosexuals allowed to marry the same sex, but homosexuals cannot. That only a homosexual would wish to do so, is entirely beside the point and utterly irrelevant to both the letter and the spirit of the 9th Amendment.
- cylarz | 06/06/2012 @ 00:24

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Six-ThreeFriday, June 1st, 2012

Six-Three
Friday, June 1st, 2012