Conservative vs Liberal

Firstly, you are not the authority of what is and what is not constitutional.

Second, the progressive activist knows they are trying to change the constitution without having to go through constitutional means to get it done. Simply wanting to make a change in and of itself is not progressive activism. Not sure why that needs explaining except that you want to twist everything to fit your presupposition. Seriously its getting bad.

 

Understood. But unfortunately, personal convictions are really not the point here.

The point is that being a nominal political conservative will not put one in the political conservative camp in the view of some or even a great many political conservatives. In other words, why should they trust you as one of them when you are not?

And asserting church fathers were correct that Christians should neither vote nor hold office compounds the nominality, as it is not merely expressing a personal conviction but a doctrine that would be applicable to the entire church. It will only lessen the trust.

 

The foundation of the birth of our nation is not the foundation of our nation. Got it.

The fact that the Bible was cited more often than any other work during the Constitutional Convention, and that references to Deuteronomy and the Apostle Paul make up the majority of those references would be clue to most people, but you were told more than once here:

God given unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness​

Your effort in that thread, btw, to delegitimize the central tenet of the DOI as mere rhetoric is the most obvious indication of your portside listing. The great divide between left and right, or liberal and conservative, is who is the identification of the author of one's rights, and the conditions under which one may be deprived thereof.

 

Let me get this straight: Your assertions (quoted above for all to see) that the plaintiffs would need alt-right judges to bend the Constitution just as their progressive counterparts do to prevail is NOT likening them to those with a liberal agenda?

He was saying that anyone engaging in judicial activism is progressive. He wasn't saying the plaintiffs were seeking judicial activism. You're saying that, and it's false.

You're again asserting another falsehood. That's not what they seek. They are seeking justice for the fraud that was allowed to be perpetrated.

You just don't like one possible implication.

 

Have you stopped beating your wife?

 

Government is all about men.

 

Not sure. Link me to the statements.

 

Poor choice of words, but his appeal to the original intent makes it obvious he's not for "terminating" the US Constitution.

His point, obvious to any critical thinker, is that fraud invalidates any act poisoned by it, even those ostensibly in observance of the Constitution. I've argued that from the beginning. Fraud is an attack on the Constitution itself.

As I thought, this is like the assertion that Trump said neo nazis were fine fine people, and that he recommended drinking disinfectant.

 

Exactly right, not sure why this needs explaining other than they just want a reason to criticize.

 

B I N G O ! ! !

 

But, back to the topic.

You're reframing and misrepresenting your opponents' arguments and adopting lib-speak to slander them.

Here's the docket. https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...2243533_20221027-152110-95757954-00007015.pdf