Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News

Drudge Retort

User Info


Subscribe to avigdore's blog Subscribe


Special Features

Wednesday, September 23, 2020

Greg Patton didn't think twice about using a Mandarin example during class. He'd used the same example for years. Little did he know it would lead to his removal, and spark international controversy. read more

What do you do when Vladimir Putin offers you Russia's new coronavirus vaccine, for free? read more

Monday, September 21, 2020

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died in the midst of a presidential election campaign in which the Supreme Court was already a major issue. The death of a liberal stalwart on the Court, along with the vacancy it creates, is bound to overwhelm for a time other campaign issues, such as the coronavirus, the economy, and disorder and mayhem on the streets of America's cities. Many have said that President Trump cannot appoint a successor to Justice Ginsburg during an election campaign, and that any such appointment must be put on hold until the next President is inaugurated in January. Democrats, for understandable reasons, want to keep the seat open until after the election when they hope a newly minted President Biden can fill the vacancy. read more

Thursday, September 10, 2020

Senate Democrats blocked a GOP coronavirus bill on Thursday amid a deep stalemate over the next relief package. read more


quoting myself.
I'm not sure what sort of hyperpartisan would consider the popularity of a law when trying to determine the Constitutionality of that law. Regardless of how popular the law is, if it's not in accordance with the Constitution, then it deserves to be struck down. I hope it's popular enough to move forward with changing the Constitution. There's a method of doing that. We don't judge the constitutionality of a law by how many people like it. - #4 | Posted by Avigdore at 2020-09-22 04:02 PM

A non-partisan judge shouldn't really be considering the impact of a law when determining its constitutionality, should they? They were nominated and consented upon to uphold the constitution, not to be lawmakers. We have an entire branch of the government to fill that role.

SC Justices take 2 oaths (there is also a combined version).

"I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

"I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

We've reached this point because SC Justices seem to no longer behave as impartial judges (along with much of the judiciary, to be sure).


A woman suspected of sending an envelope containing the poison ricin to the White House, has been arrested at the New York-Canada border and is also suspected of sending five similar poisoned envelopes to law enforcement agencies in Texas.

The letter was intercepted earlier this week before it reached the White House.

The woman was taken into custody by US Customs and Border Protection officers late on Sunday at the Peace Bridge border crossing near Buffalo and is expected to face federal charges.

The woman has not been named, but is reported to have joint Canadian and French citizenship. She is scheduled to appear in court on Tuesday.

Drudge Retort

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable