Reuters spins fake news on Supreme Court nominee Garland

Lawrence Hurley writes this article on Reuters about the refusal of the Supreme Court of a lawsuit that sought to force the Senate to vote on the confirmation of Merrick Garland to SCOTUS.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-garland-idUSKBN14824O?il=0

In Hurleys’ first nod to fake news spin, he calls Garland a “a moderate appeals court judge“. When a Mockingbird Media organ says somebody is “moderate” or a position is “moderate”, they are speaking a foreign language, they are not speaking English as in standard English. “Moderate” is a subjective word, besides, and so it says nothing about whether a court appointee is truly moderate.

Moderate, according to the most relevant Merriam-Webster definition:

“professing or characterized by political or social beliefs that are not extreme”

Garland’s past decisions show how Mockingbird Media and the Mockingbird Education Complex has abused the language to try to promote Orwellian Newspeak.

Senator Pat Toomey-PA points out that in cases involving the EPA that came before his court, Garland ruled in favor of the usual EPA unconstitutional over-reach in 90 percent of those cases. In the few times he ruled against the EPA, he said it was not enough abuse [my word] of regulatory powers.

In one such case, the court ruled that a rational cost-benefit comparison was “irrelevant”. So if, for example, saving the cross-eyed black-and-white purple polka-dot people eater would bankrupt the national treasury, this is irrelevant? Garland’s opinion was over-ruled at the Supreme Court, where Scalia joined the majority.

But Reuters says this is a “moderate”.

At the time of Ruth Bader Ginzburg’s nomination by Bill Clinton, she was at the time “regarded as a moderate”. If you dig down into why she was so regarded, it was because that was the usual Mockingbird Press talking point, not because of any objective “moderation” measuring stick.

After all, this was an ACLU attorney. Come on, “moderate”?

Her reason for saying she thought Roe v Wade was a mistake? Because it galvanized pro-life opposition to prenatal infanticide (the euphemism is “abortion”).

Now Merrick Garland has ruled against the Second Amendment in a case named by the NRA, where his opinion was that the right to bear arms was not an individual right.

No matter how much Mockingbird Press and Media mocks us by tireless repetition otherwise, the right to bear arms is an individual right and to say otherwise, that is an extremist position.

To say that any one of the rights listed in the Bill of Rights is a collectivist right and not an individual right, is an extremist position. To say that any group, as such, has a “right” based on their differences from other groups, that is an extremist collectivist deviation from the way most Americans have thought since independence.

Reuters also says that the refusal by the Senate has “little precedent in U.S. history”. This is not just spin, it is a lie.
For example,the Senate Democrats did a six-month “filibuster” against the nomination of Miguel Estrada to federal court. Estrada withdrew his name from consideration 28 months after he was nominated. The Democrats objected for ideological reasons while claiming other excuses.

“Little precedent”, Reuters? There is the matter of both Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama trying to block a vote on the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.

Well, at least they avoided the more obvious lie of “unprecedented” that some lying political mouths used.

All you power players trying to get in on a piece of Satan’s award of political power documented in Matthew 4 of the Bible, remember that “God is not mocked”, and “whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap”.

But in Isaiah 1:18 God also promised that if you “reason together” with him, “though your sins be as scarlet they will be white as snow”.  And Jesus promised that “he that cometh to me”, he will in “no wise cast out”.

 

Advertisements

Tags: , , , ,


%d bloggers like this: