If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Think Progress)   And today's Constitutional Illiteracy Prize goes to ... *drumroll* ... Jim Bridenstine, Republican from Oklahoma. *applause* Come on down, Jim, and collect your priiiiiiize   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 17
    More: Dumbass, Jim Bridenstine, Republican, Oklahoma, Lilly Ledbetter, reproductive rights  
•       •       •

7545 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Mar 2013 at 7:35 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-03-13 04:44:32 PM
6 votes:
When a member of congress, or state legislature, says something like this so profoundly ignorant, they should be escorted out of the Capitol and forbidden from holding public office ever again.
2013-03-13 04:58:38 PM
4 votes:

PreMortem: When a member of congress, or state legislature, says something like this so profoundly ignorant, they should be escorted out of the Capitol and forbidden from holding public office ever again.


Instead, it guarantees them election by the GOP for life.
2013-03-13 06:39:36 PM
3 votes:
To be (more than) fair, in a certain light he can be construed as correct. If you take "constitutional" and "unconstitutional" to be statements of fact instead of opinion, then he is correct to a certain extent. Both Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education cannot, simultaneously, be considered constitutional. This means that, if you believe that something is objectively constitutional or not, either the Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson or Brown v. Board of Education declared that something was constitutional when in fact it was not. Now, if you define what is and is not constitutional as "whatever the controlling Supreme Court decision has stated" (you know, the way our government actually works) then the man is clearly an idiot.
2013-03-13 04:32:30 PM
2 votes:
"Who the fark are these assholes 'Marbury' and 'Madison' anyway?  WTF makes them so special?"
2013-03-14 03:10:27 AM
1 votes:
Just wait until the Supreme Court decides a matter in favor of the Republicans and it will all suddenly change to the Supreme Court being unchangeable and the law must be upheld because they said so.
2013-03-14 01:50:21 AM
1 votes:
Well, seeing as about half of congresscritters can't name the three branches of government that's not all that surprising of a fail...
2013-03-13 11:52:09 PM
1 votes:

Gergesa: Well he didn't say anything about rape.  I guess that is an improvement of sorts.


Well, that's not in the constitution either...
2013-03-13 10:13:22 PM
1 votes:

ReverendJasen: Another one who should be repeatedly raped by the constitution until he's memorized it by anal osmosis.


Really?


Reallllyyyy???
2013-03-13 09:35:18 PM
1 votes:

Lenny_da_Hog: Albino Squid: Frank N Stein: Cool. I'm going to cite this article next time someone complains that just because the SC ruled in Hellers favor doesn't mean it's constitutional.

Is DC flouting the ruling on the basis of well, that's just like, your opinion, man, or are they disagreeing with the conclusions reached therein but falling the guidance of the court as to the constitutionality of the ruling? Because what this moron is doing is a whole different ballgame from believing that the decision should have gone the other way.

Typical exchange:

"Let's pass a crazy restrictive law! Dead children! Hey, there's 20 dead kids, let's start looking at how to cut this down. Here's some ideas."

"That would be unconstitutional THIS DESTROYS THE SECOND AMENDMENT!!!."

"But 'MILITIA!' ...Not really...you can't shout 'fire' in a crowded theater either..."

"That's been ruled on by SCOTUS. You'd have to amend the constitution."

"Nuh-uh! MILITIA! Erm. That's not actually how it works..."

"AS LONG AS THE SECOND AMENDMENT EXISTS WE CAN DO WHAT WE WANT!!!!"

"o.O"


FTFY.

/If you consider 'low-capacity magazines', 'mental health care', 'background checks', and 'nothing that can't be used for hunting' to be unreasonable, that's not actually because you're  right.
2013-03-13 09:14:40 PM
1 votes:
As much as I detest this guy's politics, I don't have a problem with drawing a distinction between "held constitutional"--or constitutional in the sense of being enforceable as a practical matter--and "constitutional" in the sense of actually conforming to the standards set out in the Constitution.


The courts are also tasked with determining criminal guilt, but I would certainly distinguish between a person who has been "found guilty" and a person who  is "guilty." And the same goes for any number of other questions--whether a shooting is "justified," whether behavior is "unethical," whether material is "obscene," and so on.
2013-03-13 08:37:54 PM
1 votes:

PreMortem: When a member of congress, or state legislature, says something like this so profoundly ignorant, they should be escorted out of the Capitol and forbidden from holding public office ever again.


he said it to Thomas's wife. what's that tell you.

yeah beside Thomas is unfit and should recuse himself from damn near everything.
2013-03-13 08:23:08 PM
1 votes:
Well he didn't say anything about rape.  I guess that is an improvement of sorts.
2013-03-13 08:00:09 PM
1 votes:

what_now: DamnYankees: Eh, this isn't that dumb. I think there's a valid point to be made that the Supreme Court doesn't get to decide whether or not one thinks a given law is constitutional or not. It just makes it the law; it doesnt change your personal view of the matter.

Seriously? "Area man passionate defender of what he thinks the constitution says" is satire"


While that's not a mainstream position, its not insane. The Constitution does not, in fact, give the court the power to do that.
2013-03-13 07:54:08 PM
1 votes:
Cool. I'm going to cite this article next time someone complains that just because the SC ruled in Hellers favor doesn't mean it's constitutional.
2013-03-13 07:11:47 PM
1 votes:
FTA: BRIDENSTINE:Just because the Supreme Court rules on something doesn't necessarily mean that that's constitutional

Wow I never thought I'd read something that ignorant and stupid today...
You lost get over it and move on.
i.imgur.com
2013-03-13 06:41:23 PM
1 votes:

Krymson Tyde: I've had several debates with a teatard cousin regarding the SCOTUS and constitutionality of laws.

Of course the same guy claims to have been a life-long democrat until some mysterious event in 2008 made him change parties.


That must have been a dark day
2013-03-13 04:32:46 PM
1 votes:
I'd like to once again thank my maternal grandparents for having the sense to leave that sh*hole
 
Displayed 17 of 17 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report