United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Trump nominates Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court
Source:
YouTube
URL Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUxA_fh_cMA
Published: Jul 9, 2018
Author: staff
Post Date: 2018-07-09 21:25:39 by buckeroo
Keywords: None
Views: 9897
Comments: 160
Kool Pick! Should go through the Senate seamlessly.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 160.
#1. To: buckeroo, Catholic swamp SCOTUS (#0)
Jesuit swamp critter.
He's a Jesuit? Seriously? Being associated with the Bush Crime Family was bad enough,but THAT,if true,should be the kiss of death for the SC.
www.politico.com/newslett...plenty-of-material-274850 Is the Pope Catholic? Both of Trump's SCOTUS justices Gorsuch & Kavanaugh, attended the same Jesuit high school.
Absolutely. And 9 would be best of all. #WINNING
LOL These Trumpkins are such Vatican puppets! Francis the hippie Pope is Jesuit too. What a coincidence. The Scofield prots have been beaten down, and they're loving it.
Catholics don't even know what "Scofield Prots" are. We simply have our set of interests and beliefs, and we want to see them enacted as the law of the land. Nothing more, nothing less. We know, given that we're a minority, that we cannot get our way on everything, so we compromise as necessary in order to get, in the main, what it is that we most care about. This isn't different from any other political grouping, like yours for instance.
That is not Catholic be!ief.... Anyone that wants their religious beliefs enacted as our as our law of the land, ---- should be shot for treason...
Per the US Constitution: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." Wanting to see my moral beliefs become the law of the land is not levying war against the United States or adhering to their enemies. So, your accusation of treason is un-American. You want to shoot me because you don't agree with my politics. That's not American at all. But hey, you do you.
Per the US Constitution: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." Wanting to see my moral beliefs become the law of the land is not levying war against the United States or adhering to their enemies. "Treason against the United States, shall consist in -- to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." You want to see your RELlGIOUS beliefs become the law of the land, ---- this is giving our enemies aid and comfort, --- by violating the first amendment to the Constitution... Our enemies want to see our Constitution infringed and violated. ---- As does your proposal...
Thank God you don't get to decide what words mean. Legally trained judges do, and they went to places like Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Chicago, where they learned what legal words mean on a consistent basis. Me too. I speak the same language they do. You speak the language of "I have angry politics, and I will make words mean whatever I say they mean in order to impose my will!" Fortunately, you are just one crank. When it comes to the meaning of words of law, you can take it to the bank that what I say is true and accurate 100% of the time. Words mean things. Legal words mean things. They mean what courts and the legal profession and tradition and the institutions that teach these things say they mean. They do not mean what any old angry man thinks they mean. Thank God. Because it means the law is predictable, and no subject to the whims of angryman. Because I understand the law objectively and professionally, I can objectively and professionally tell you the places where I disagree with it, and what would have to happen for it to be changed to reflect what I want. All you can do is go ballistic and try to redefine words to suit you - but honestly you're just an ignorant old jackass and not one other person in the world cares what you think words mean. It is NOT TREASON under the Constitution of the United States for me to hope that my Catholic beliefs are enacted into law either by Congress, or through Supreme Court opinions. That's our legal system, that's our political system. That's how the game is played, and it is not treasonous for me to want to get my way. You can make up whatever meanings of words you want to, but you're just a single angry old man pounding on a keyboard. You don't get to define what one single word means, you never will, and you're wrong. What you want will never happen, because you don't get to define anything. I don't either, but at least I am realist who knows what words DO mean, and what the system actually IS, so I don't sit around spinning fantasies of what the world would look like IF ONLY I got to define words to mean what I want them to mean. You don't like Catholic beliefs or ideas and don't want to see them prevail. That's fine. I do. That's also fine. It's not treason. It never will be treason. And given fertility and demographic realities, over time I am very likely to win, and see what I want as the law of the land. There is no chance of that ever happening for you. You're cranky and angry, you'll die cranky and angry. And after you die, you'll wake up and discover that the Catholics were right all along. So you are doomed to the defeat of everything you believe in in this world AND the next, for all eternity. Sucks to be you.
You want to see your RELlGIOUS beliefs become the law of the land, ---- this is giving our constitutions enemies aid and comfort, --- by violating the first amendment to the Constitution... You keep trying to make a rhetorical distinction: --- " It is NOT TREASON under the Constitution of the United States for me to hope that my Catholic beliefs are enacted into law either by Congress, or through Supreme Court opinions ----" (court opinions make law?) Whereas our Constitution is quite clear that we --- shall make no laws respecting the 'establishments' (beliefs) of our various religions.. Sucks to be a fanatic like you. (Btw, As a boy I was confirmed as a Catholic, agree with most Christian principles, but am now agnostic enough to admit that I'll never understand religion.)
Obviously Supreme Court opinions make law.
Obviously, a fanatic like you ---- wants Supreme Court opinions to make law. They don't. SCOTUS opinions decide legal disputes about constitutional issues. Federal, State, and local legislators make law; -- laws that must comply with our Constitution..
It’s not a question of what I want or don’t want. You’re the solipsistic here, who mistakes his own opinions on the way things ought to be with the way things are. I’m the realist who discusses the way things ARE, whether I like it or not. In America, Judges make law. Always have. That’s why Roe is the law of the land.
Welcome to the Twilight Zone and the tpaine Court of the Imagination™. Just to get you acclimated to the tpaine Court of the Imagination™, here are a few unique provisions guaranteed to make you wonder why you bothered to study law. - - - - - - - - - - http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46847&Disp=7#C7 tpaine posted on 2016-06-27 18:44:47 ET - - - - - - - - - - http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46277&Disp=49#C49 tpaine posted on 2016-05-25 12:08:35 ET - - - - - - - - - - http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46771&Disp=28#C28 tpaine posted on 2016-06-23 21:26:13 ET - - - - - - - - - - http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=40732 http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=40620&Disp=136#C136 It has the power to issue an opinion that such an amendment is unconstitutional.. - - - - - - - - - -
The US Supreme Court has the authority to "interpret" the US Constitution, but their 'authority' is to issue opinions, -- opinions which are NOT binding on the legislative, -- or the executive branch. ---- tpaine posted Thank you for posting some of my opinions, as I stand by them all.. Jefferson disagreed with Marshall's reasoning in Marbury:--- You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co- equal and co-sovereign within themselves.
I am sure that you do. You live in your own world. And Marbury is still good law and binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent. You failed to say what you think the significance of somebody's disagreement with the Opinion of the Court in Marbury might possibly be. "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.... The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution...." U.S. Const., Article III SCOTUS is the ultimate arbiter of the law, including the Constitution. Their opinion of what the law states is binding. If there is a desire for different law, the Constitution can be amended or repealed by the people.
SCOTUS opinions can be erased by constitutional amendment, yes. When a SCOTUS opinion strikes a part of a statute, Congress can indeed pass a new statute that addresses the problem, and thereby remove the barrier created by the Supreme Court opinion, yes. Executive inaction can nullify a SCOTUS opinion. President Lincoln ignored the Court's habeas corpus rulings during the Civil War. No President has done so since. The President that did risks impeachment. Public inaction? The public doesn't fully obey any of the laws now, so ----- Vic Nolu, ------ SCOTUS is the ultimate arbiter of the law, including the Constitution. Their opinion of what the law states is binding. If there is a desire for different law, the Constitution can be amended or repealed by the people. You two have some differences. I suggest you discuss them... I thank Vic for his honesty in agreeing with my points...
I don't think Nolu and I actually disagree at all. I was saying that Supreme Court opinions are law, and they are. You mentioned a series of ways, some legitimate, some not, by which a SCOTUS opinion can be overturned. In other words, ways in which a higher law changes a lower law. That's true. But if it comes to a square on constitutional issue, the Supreme Court trumps. Probably the cardinal example would be a law passed by Congress and signed by the President that purported to strip the Supreme Court of the power of Constitutional review. SCOTUS would strike down that law as unconstitutional.
But if it comes to a square on constitutional issue, the Supreme Court trumps. SCOTUS opinions can be, and are overturned by amendments, legislative law, and/or executive & public inaction.. -------------------- ALL are legitimate when the scotus opinion is unconstitutional. (IE, Dred Scott) Digress as you will, the fact remains, your desire to pass religious laws is repugnant, and gives aid and comfort to our enemies.
The Opinion of the Court in Dred Scott was not unconstitutional, was correctly decided, and I very much doubt you have the slightest clue what the mandate of Dred Scott said, or what the actual decision of the case was. Dred Scott is still citable as good law, and has been cited as recently as 2016 by the Solicitor General of Kansas in a brief to the Supreme Court of Kansas. SCOTUS opinions interpreting the Constitution are overturned by Amendments to the Constitution, or by the Court revisiting the issue as in Brown and separate but equal. Public inaction does nothing. Executive inaction may mean a lack of enforcement, but it does not effect a legal overturning of the Opinion. He did not say he wants to pass religious laws. He said he wants laws passed that align with his religious moral beliefs. Some have a moral belief that all abortion is wrong and should be prohibited. Advocating for said belief is repugnant to pro-choice folks, not repugnant to pro-life folks, and does not give aid and comfort to our enemies, something that refers to enemies in time of war.
Some have a moral belief that all abortion is wrong and should be prohibited. Advocating for said belief is repugnant to pro-choice folks, not repugnant to pro-life folks, and does not give aid and comfort to our enemies, something that refers to enemies in time of war. We have radical Muslim enemies working to install Shira 'law', in the USA.. Religious laws are repugnant to the First Amendment of our Constitution... Why are you giving and and comfort to religious radicals?
You don’t get to characterize motive. Well, let me correct myself: it’s a free country - you can ascribe whatever motive you like. The liberals just attempted to block Trump’s travel ban because they said that deep down inside it was motivated by religious hatred, but the Supreme Court does not presume to sift through the hearts of men. It’s analysis is straightforward: it’s an immigration matter, the president controls that, what the President is doing has national security as its stated purpose, not racial or religious animus, and the ban is aimed at countries that have a rational relationship to terror - not every Muslim country. Therefore, the law has a rational basis, and it’s clearly within the President’s power. End of analysis. You want to go farther, to plumb the hearts of men. You know that my motivation for wanting to ban abortion is because I know that the human being is ensouled at conception, a concept rooted in religion, not science. You know that is my motivation - that I believe that because I am Catholic and think that my church is correct on the matter. But that is not the basis I have argued. I have pointed to the fact that the unborn baby is going to be killed, legally, without having been convicted of any crime, and without a process or a hearing. I’m squarely arguing the due process clause of the 14th amendment. I note that it applies to “persons”, and that there’s no formal definition in law as to when a person becomes a person. I am asking the court to establish that as a constitutional matter, to preclude the states from deciding differently, just as Roe precludes the states from deciding differently in the other direction. I know I cannot win at the ballot box, and I know that the legislatures of many states won’t go along, So I need a super-powered body to override the democracy if I am going to get my way. That’s why this has to be done through the Supreme Court. There is no other way to do it. I am a pragmatic objective-driven person, a military man with a military mind. I am interested in winning the war, and the ends justify the means, when the ends are mine. Of course I will bellyache when the other side with ends I don’t support try the same thing and win - not because I don’t understand why they have done what they have done, nor even because I am really morally outraged at their tactics. I am annoyed at their victory - I want to win. If things are expressed in such a direct and honest people, less ruthless minds will quail and retreat. Therefore, hypocrisy is the hommage that my vice of pragmatic ends-justify-the-means victory seeking pays to the virtue of formal rights-based legalism. I will make my argument in the form required for the people who don’t want to face the truth directly, and dance the legal fan dance of concealed motives and hypocrisy, in order to get my way. Am I really outraged at the way the abortion supporters fight their battle? Of course not. They want to win, and they have been effective at it. I despise their cause, but I tip my hat to their skill in advancing it within our system. It seems to me that you MIGHT be doing the same thing, but the trouble is that you’re stating things about the physics of the battlefield that are not true. You’re making Pickett’s Charge, over and over again. That was never going to work. IN our system, you don’t get to read my heart. You only get to react to my argument. Yeah, I want to win a Catholic victory. But no, I have not come onto the battlefield under an icon of Mary. I’ve argued the 14th amendment and due process. I can’t win under an icon - that’s impossible given our system. But I COULD win under the constitutional argument, if similarly minded judges are sitting up there seeking a pretext to do the right thing. Oh, what a terrible person I am for not directly stating my intentions but hiding them behind valid legal arguments. Hypocrisy is the hommage vice renders to virtue. That’s our system. I am not about making a beau geste. I’m always about winning the battle and getting my way. So sue me.
I merely want the Supreme Court to rule that substantive due process prohibits the killing of an unborn child, because the child had no opportunity to have a fair trial before being deprived of life. That's a constitutional question, not a religious one. YOU say it's religious. I say it's a matter of national security. I replied: :----- You 'merely' want the Supreme Court to enact a Catholic belief as the law of the land.. What you want is specifically mentioned as being unconstitutional in the First Amendment.. Your last reply: --- "Oh, what a terrible person I am for not directly stating my intentions but hiding them behind valid legal arguments. Hypocrisy is the hommage vice renders to virtue. That’s our system. I am not about making a beau geste. I’m always about winning the battle and getting my way. So sue me." Instead of a lawsuit, -- how bout I take pity on you, and let you rest? --' You could also consider finding some professional help...
Instead of getting professional help, how about I smile at the progressive Hispanicization of America, recognizing the fact that Latinos are much more pro-life on average than whites, even while being more pro- social state. In other words, as the country fills up with my co-religionists, the Democrat party in particular fills up with people who are markedly less pro-choice than they are, but who otherwise will maintain necessary social welfare. All I have to do is sit and wait and time and demographics will give me the victory. The Republicans won't be doing it, nor the Independents. It will come from a Democratic Party that has become dominated by Latin Catholics, and they think like I do on abortion. Give it up? Why would I do that? I'm pretty much winning on everything I care about. Some recipes take longer to cook. Better learn Spanish. Si, se puede.
So when MS-13 swarms into YOUR town, squat across the street in a tent as the town grow more dangerous, socialist and ILLEGALLY Hispanic...you mean YOU'RE ok with that? And btw -- Latinos may be more pro-life than "whites" (secular, atheist and RCC whites that is), but by and large the ONLY way these ILLEGAL INVADER families and the fathers can afford larger families is because they are being subsidized by AMERICAN taxpayers. IOW, they are thieves of US sovereignty and US taxpayer resources via socialism at the local, state and national level. WITHOUT OUR CONSENT. Yet THIS theft without the consent of Americans makes you smile? Just...weird on so many levels. All I have to do is sit and wait and time and demographics will give me the victory....as the country fills up with my co-religionists... HUH?? Give YOU "the victory"?? Over who? WHO LOSES?? REAL AMERICANS?? Protestant Americans? That's a pretty galling principle. In your mind you've declared war...on the USA. Just like the Globalists and Democrats Moreover, it's actually treasonous and a betrayal of all those descendants of the Americans who've established, built AND sacrificed for the principles of the Founders. [My victory] will come from a Democratic Party that has become dominated by Latin Catholics, and they think like I do on abortion. Talk about a Pyrrhic victory. The day the the dominant demo of Democrats are the same outlaw Latinos who invaded the USA and re-established La Raza is THE day there is no more USA. Chyeah -- "WOO-HOO!!" Feliz Cinco de Mayo! And btw Vic -- the Democrats' "holy sacrament" of Abortion will NEVER change. Their leadership will remain the Tom Perez-Che types. I'm pretty much winning on everything I care about. As confused as you seem to be across the board about issues that really matter to freedom and sovereignty, that doesn't surprise me. Better learn Spanish. Why? Was a war fought and someone forgot to tell us? Or...Are some posters moving to El Salvador or Mexifornia?
You guys lose the bubble every time you go here. You are a minority. You do not get to define treason. Whenever you scream that I am traitor, with my two decades of military service, including wartime service, because you disagree with me politically, my mind immediately goes to full FUCK YOU mode. No, I'm not a traitor, and who the hell do you people think you are to say I am. I will tell you what you are. You are a minority in a losing cause. Your ideas have not prevailed. you have not held the battlefield. Know why? Because there is a fundamental, irreconcilable illogic in the basic principles on which your beliefs are built. You try to glue together Christianity, militarism and unregulated capitalism, all into one. That creates a set of beliefs as much in conflict and unworkable as Soviet Communism. And your ideas failed in the battlefield of ideas. They did not produce an economy prosperous enough, or a society stable enough, to be able to hold the votes in a democracy. So you receded from power and other more practical ideas took hold. Now, people like me want to work with you, and part of that means bringing you in off the ledge of crazy and making you see WHY your ideas do not hold together and do not make rational sense. They are in conflict with each other, and they have actually failed already on the field of political battle. But you adopt a "take no prisoners" approach AS THOUGH you are the superior army. Many of you hearken back to the old Confederacy and how grand it was, and how right its cause was. But then you stride onto that battlefield like Robert E. Lee at Gettysburg, and you don't realize that, actually, you're the inferior army, you're the weaker side. So you do something damned foolish just like he did, and charge directly at the stronger, better equipped army: Pickett's Charge. You charge straight into the guns, AS THOUGH somehow God were on your side and will carry you through to victory. And just exactly like Lee's Confederates at Gettysburg, you get massacred. The disciplined, larger, stronger army on the other side just pours fire down on you, and God stands on the side of the bigger battalions. Your brave warriors get shot all to pieces in a charge that any sensible commander should have known was hopeless, and stupid, and both the battle and the war is lost in an afternoon. But then, instead of learning from it, and admitting that Robert E. Lee was really a fool, you curl back into a fetal position of pride and extol his virtues and the virtues of your cause, even as everything goes to pieces around you. Truth is, the battle didn't need to be fought in the first place. Yes, yes, imaged language. That seems to exceed your ability to grasp, so I'll be straightforward. When somebody calls me a traitor - I stop reading. You've lost when you do that. Whatever you have to say after that is pointless, because your reasoning has already derailed. My long service and combat medals erase your ability to call me that, especially if you don't have any. Simple fact is, I put myself in harm's way for this country for two decades, and you did not. Therefore, you are an idiot when you call me a traitor, and what you have to say is of zero value. You can scream at the moon, but it's a losing position. We disagree politically, and I'm a very intelligent, experienced and successful man. Successful in the military. Successful in this American economy since the military. A top one percent. The sort of success story that Americans like you claim is the be all and end all of America. But you want to presume to lecture me with your hysterical politics, like a woman on her period. It's ridiculous. What you say is ridiculous, over the top. And it brings out my bad manners. Now, if you want to have a calm, rational discussion of the issues, I am all for that. But the distemper that guys like you, or Stone or others thrown at me is the whining of angry old men and fringe people whose causes are lost. You don't have power BECAUSE you speak stupidly and spit at people. You can't get along with people, so you scream at them that they are traitors. It's Pickett's Charge all over again, time after time, and you never learn a goddamned thing from it. Do I want the country to go Spanish? No, not really. But if it's a choice between Spanish-speakers and morons who presume to call me a traitor, I'd rather replace you with them, yeah. And that's YOUR fault, buddy, not mine. You lose the fight, and the war, every time you resort to "traitor" or "Marxist" or any of these other teenage words of an hysterical woman. You lost when you call the Catholic Church "Satanists" or the Pope "the poop" or any of the other 14 year old logic. I stay here because it amuses me to do so. Sometimes I realize that my doing so is just an utter waste of time, that I'd be better off doing just about ANYTHING else - going and taking a walk down on the beach, etc. I stay, I think, because actually I came right out of the deep country like you did, and I am an American success story, and I have plenty to teach you. The most important lesson is how to calm down and be reasonable and moderate in tone, and not come unglued under pressure. You're just going to keep on losing as long as you do that. If you're calling me a traitor, you've gone postal and lost. Every time. No matter how angry you get, I am not a traitor, by definition, and if you've become so wedded to some political position that you're calling me one, it means that YOU have gone off into carnkville and need to rein yourself back in.
You have not committed treason Vic. But some of your statements show you are ok betraying your people.
I am quite loyal to "my people". I define who "my people" are.
There are no replies to Comment # 160. End Trace Mode for Comment # 160.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#21. To: hondo68 (#1)
Jesuit swamp critter.
#29. To: sneakypete, Jesuit Trump family, Catholic yutes (#21)
(Edited)
— Kavanaugh has tutored at Washington Jesuit Academy, where he sits on the board of directors, and at J.O. Wilson Elementary School, according to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals website. He went to high school at Georgetown Prep — which Justice Neil Gorsuch also attended — and is a graduate of Yale College and Yale Law School.
He's a Jesuit? Seriously?
Trump chose a judge reared in Washington’s finest Jesuit institutions, including Georgetown Preparatory School. Kavanaugh, who serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, is active in several Catholic organizations in the area. Trump pointed out that he coaches his daughter’s Catholic Youth Organization basketball team. 
If one SCOTUS Jesuit is good, then two is better right?
#47. To: hondo68 (#29)
Both of Trump's SCOTUS justices Gorsuch & Kavanaugh, attended the same Jesuit high school. If one SCOTUS Jesuit is good, then two is better right?
#48. To: Vicomte13 (#47)
(Edited)
#WINNING
#49. To: hondo68 (#48)
The Scofield prots have been beaten down, and they're loving it.
#50. To: Vicomte13 (#49)
Catholics ------- simply have our set of interests and beliefs, and we want to see them enacted as the law of the land. Nothing more, nothing less.
#52. To: tpaine (#50)
should be shot for treason...
#88. To: Vicomte13, Y'ALL (#52)
Anyone that wants their religious beliefs enacted as our as our law of the land, ---- should be shot for treason..
#90. To: tpaine (#88)
You want to see your RELlGIOUS beliefs become the law of the land, ---- this is giving our enemies aid and comfort, --- by violating the first amendment to the Constitution...
#99. To: Vicomte13, Y'ALL (#90)
(Edited)
You don't like Catholic beliefs or ideas and don't want to see them prevail. That's fine. I do. That's also fine. It's not treason. It never will be treason.
#100. To: tpaine (#99)
#101. To: Vicomte13 (#100)
Obviously Supreme Court opinions make law.
#102. To: tpaine (#101)
#105. To: Vicomte13, tpaine (#102)
You’re the solipsistic here, who mistakes his own opinions on the way things ought to be with the way things are. I’m the realist who discusses the way things ARE, whether I like it or not.
In the long run, SCOTUS opinions don't mean much, as people,and the legislators they elect have the right to ignore them, and write new laws that circumvent their supposed edicts.
The 2nd [Amendment] has always applied to the States, -- the 'incorporation' bull has just been used by statists to avoid compliance.
The US Supreme Court has the authority to "interpret" the US Constitution, but their 'authority' is to issue opinions, -- opinions which are NOT binding on the legislative, -- or the executive branch.
During a discussion with Nolu Chan, he asserted that an amendment repealing the 2nd could be ratified, and become a valid part of our Constitution. I contend such an amendment would be unconstitutional.
Does the Court strike down this part of the Constitution as unconstitutional?
#108. To: nolu chan (#105)
here are a few unique provisions
#114. To: tpaine (#108)
Thank you for posting some of my opinions, as I stand by them all..
Jefferson disagreed with Marshall's reasoning in Marbury:---
You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.
#116. To: nolu chan, vicomte13, Y'ALL (#114)
SCOTUS opinions can be, and are overturned by amendments, legislative law, and/or executive & public inaction... ---- tpaine
#117. To: tpaine (#116)
#118. To: Vicomte13, Y'ALL (#117)
You mentioned a series of ways, some legitimate, some not, by which a SCOTUS opinion can be overturned. In other words, ways in which a higher law changes a lower law. That's true.
#122. To: tpaine, Vicomte13 (#118)
(Edited)
SCOTUS opinions can be, and are overturned by amendments, legislative law, and/or executive & public inaction.. -------------------- ALL are legitimate when the scotus opinion is unconstitutional. (IE, Dred Scott)
Digress as you [Vicomte13] will, the fact remains, your desire to pass religious laws is repugnant, and gives aid and comfort to our enemies.
#124. To: nolu chan (#122)
He did not say he wants to pass religious laws. He said he wants laws passed that align with his religious moral beliefs. ---- (Yes, he wants his religious moral beliefs passed into laws.)
#126. To: tpaine (#124)
#129. To: Vicomte13 (#126)
Vicomte13 wrote at (#120) ------ Catholics ------- simply have our set of interests and beliefs, and we want to see them enacted as the law of the land. Nothing more, nothing less.I
#131. To: tpaine (#129)
Instead of a lawsuit, -- how bout I take pity on you, and let you rest? --' You could also consider finding some professional help...
#138. To: Vicomte13, tpaine (#131)
(Edited)
How about I smile at the progressive Hispanicization of America, recognizing the fact that Latinos are much more pro-life on average than whites, even while being more pro- social state.
#143. To: Liberator (#138)
Moreover, it's actually treasonous and a betrayal
#154. To: Vicomte13 (#143)
If you're calling me a traitor, you've gone postal and lost. Every time. No matter how angry you get, I am not a traitor, by definition, and if you've become so wedded to some political position that you're calling me one, it means that YOU have gone off into carnkville and need to rein yourself back in.
#160. To: A K A Stone (#154)
You have not committed treason Vic. But some of your statements show you are ok betraying your people.
Replies to Comment # 160.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]