By Craig Andresen – Right Side Patriots on American Political Radio
Allow me, for a moment, to channel my inner snowflake…
HOLY CRAP!!!!
This is bigger that Watergate,
This is potentially more devastating than Pearl Harbor…more of a disaster than 9/11.
It’s bigger than the Hindenburg, Titanic, the San Francisco earthquake and Mrs. O’Leary’s cow in Chicago all rolled into one.
And that cow was pretty good sized.
Hide the women and children, buckle up and put on your helmets…this is HUGE!!!
By Craig Andresen – Right Side Patriots on American Political Radio
While the collective mainstream media continues to have a mass orgasm over comments 
made by Donald Trump more than a decade ago, and while several key Republicans, including Paul Ryan whose wife is a millionaire lobbyist for the liberal/socialist party who has raised a substantial amount of money for the Hillary Clinton campaign continue to run away from their nominee like cowards…
I think a little perspective is in order.
Americans, and for that matter, America herself have but two choices in November as no 3rd party or write-in candidate has ever had a chance of winning…Trump or Clinton and while Trump is obviously a cad, a lewd and foul-mouthed cad…he’s still a better choice than Hillary.
As Conservatives, we can’t be so consumed with looking for the next Jesus Christ to be our candidate of choice or our nominee that we risk ignoring impending doom for our Constitutional Republic in the process.
News flash…
By Craig Andresen Right Side Patriots http://www.americanpbn.com/
As bugs bunny would say…
“What a maroon…”
The man who would be POTUS…the loon followed by blind, low-information voters…Donald J. Trump…is now bordering on displaying the collective intelligence of a sack of potatoes.
My apologies to spuds everywhere.
Given that whoever the next POTUS is, that person will be tasked with appointing at least one, if not several Supreme Court Justices and one would think…no…one would HOPE that whoever that is has, at the very least, an inkling of what the job of a Supreme Court Justice actually is.
Now we KNOW that Ted Cruz knows exactly what the duties of the SCOTUS are. After all, Cruz has argued several cases before the nation’s highest court and as a Constitutional expert, Cruz knows full well that the SCOTUS interprets the Constitution were our laws are concerned. It is the job of the SCOTUS to determine whether or not our laws meet Constitutional muster.
But moron Don?
By Craig Andresen Right Side Patriots http://www.americanpbn.com/
Suddenly, with the death of Justice Scalia, the appointment of a ninth Justice to the Supreme Court has take
n on more weight than most would have previously believed necessary in this, an election year.
Just as weighty as the decision as to who should nominate our next Supreme Court Justice is how any nominee will view Constitutional theory or how that person will interpret the Constitution.
Along those lines, there are five basic theories of Constitutional interpretation. Generally, those theories are as follows: (1) the text and structure of the Constitution, (2) intentions of those who drafted, voted to propose, or voted to ratify the provision in question, (3) prior precedents (usually judicial), (4) the social, political, and economic consequences of alternative interpretations, and (5) natural law. There is general agreement that the first three of these sources are appropriate guides to interpretation, but considerable disagreement as to the relative weight that should be given to the three sources when they point in different directions. Many interpreters of the Constitution have suggested that the consequences of alternative interpretations are never relevant, even when all other considerations are evenly balanced. Natural law (higher law, God’s law) is now only infrequently suggested as an interpretive guide, even though many of the framers of the Constitution recognized its appropriateness. Persons who favor heavy reliance on originalist sources (text and intentions) are commonly called “originalists.” Persons who favor giving a more substantial weighting to precedent, consequences, or natural law are called “non-originalists.” In practice, disagreement between originalists and non-originalists often concerns whether to apply heightened judicial scrutiny to certain “fundamental rights” that are not explicitly protected in the text of the Constitution.