Thursday, February 12, 2015

This...Is Satan's CNN

by JASmius

As any decent historian or expert in biblical hermeneutics will tell you, context is everything to understanding anything.  When I saw that CNN's Chris Cuomo baldly and bluntly declared on the air (which means hardly anybody actually saw it, which is why I'm doing my public service good deed of the day by bringing it to y'all's attention) that our rights "don't come from God, they come from men," a couple of thoughts came to mind.  One was that that was awfully MSNBC-esque for a CNN host.  There isn't much, if any, ideological daylight between the two, but CNN typically has an at least thin veneer of professional decorum by which they pretend to be a news-ish network and not a loony bin that would make Gotham City's Arkum Asylum look like an episode of Masterpiece Theater.  The other was wondering why Cuomo didn't just tell Thomas Jefferson to turn over in his grave and [BLEEP] himself like he was Sally Hemings.

Then I saw who Cuomo was inquisitioning, and it all made sense.



Roy Moore, the courageous, Constitutionalist, Christian Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, refused to be trapped, refused to be lampooned, and schooled Chris Cuomo like a student in one of this site's proprietor's Constitution classes on what the founding documents say and what they do and do not empower the federal government to do, and that includes the fact that they do NOT empower the federal courts to dictate marriage definitions to the "Several States".  And Cuomo became so incensed that his inner Chris Hayes came out, bidden or unbidden.

Not that we didn't already know that about CC.  But, nevertheless, well done, Chief Justice Moore.  Nicely done, indeed.

1 comment:

Call Me Mom said...

If words in the law do not mean what the meant when they were written, then the rule of law is over. Redefining a word in the law to provide a legislative shortcut for one individual or group undermines the rule of law entirely. For what legislator can possibly craft a law intended to benefit posterity when he or she cannot prevent the very essence of that law - the words by which it is to be understood by the citizenry - from being perverted to whatever vile or gallant purpose the ignorant wish to propose?