Title: SAY GOODBYE TO RUMMY - WITHIN WEEKS HE WILL RESIGN Source:
THE GIFT TO SEE THE TRUTH URL Source:[None] Published:Jun 4, 2006 Author:TLBSHOW Post Date:2006-06-04 10:40:35 by TLBSHOW Keywords:None Views:19268 Comments:91
Nothing in the record would lead me to agree. Unless looking the other way on torture and losing what should have been an easily-winnable war are considered great accomplishments... :)
I didn't want to turn this into a pissing match...but it's clear we lost the war when we became the torturers we claimed we flew 3,000 miles to destroy. :(
I'm not joking, Mr. Stone...sure, the SCOTUS has bastardized the meaning of the Commerce Clause to give the Federal Leviathan authority over EVERYTHING that happens in America, but that can be overturned if we get the Right majority in the Supreme Court. I think Alito is a good addition, although the jury's still out on Roberts, imho.
"I would hope that the Supreme Court stays as impartial and non-partisan as possible."
It's not partisan to recognize that the U.S. Constitution expressly limited the size and scope of the Federal Leviathan and courts have bastardized the meaning of the Commerce Clause to allow the Feds to stick their noses into every nook and cranny of our society.
Federal Leviathan and courts have bastardized the meaning of the Commerce Clause to allow the Feds to stick their noses into every nook and cranny of our society.
So you would agree that Congress should not be passing federal legislation to allow gay marriage? :)
"Congress should not be passing federal legislation to allow gay marriage?"
At present, the debate is about a Constitutional Amendment, which is the way change is supposed to occur, as compared to overriding the Constitution with an activist Judiciary.
And how is that not invading every nook and cranny of our society?
This is why the judiciary -- and Congress -- should remain as balanced and impartial as possible, so these encroachments on the minority's freedoms can be avoided.
"...the judiciary -- and Congress -- should remain as balanced and impartial as possible"
Balanced? What's that mean? In any event, the judiciary should maintain a steadfast non-partisan bias, but the Congress is by definition "partial" to given ideologies, as they should be.
"...these encroachments on the minority's freedoms can be avoided."
Last I checked (ten seconds ago, on C-SPAN2), the rights of a certain minority in this country are being encroached upon...and by a non-balanced, thoughtless cross-section of the Republican party. It's sad.
"...the rights of a certain minority in this country are being encroached upon"
Puh-LEEEZE!! Marriage is the holy matrimony between one man and one woman for the furtherance of creating a family unit to bear the next generation. That's just what "marriage" is, and the gays oughtta just git over it. If they want to pledge their undying love for their partner and exercise certain legal provisions similar to those that married folks have, more power to them, but it ain't a "marriage"...call it a "coupling" or whatever, but it ain't marriage...MUD
No, they are asking for special rights...if a man--any man--wants to get married, all they need to do is find a willing lass. But two men or two women cannot be married, by definition.
Do you believe brothers should be allowed to marry their sisters? How about fathers marrying their daughters?
You just can't go changing the definition of, arguably, the most successful institution out there without beginning down a very slippery slope.
I never said I want brothers to marry sisters, or fathers to marry daughters. I said I want no American's right to life, liberty and happiness to be encroached upon by the government, whether that be the Congress or the Courts.
I would be equally upset if it were the activist Courts trying to remove gay men's and gay women's rights. Today it just happens to be Congress acting like thoughtless fools.
I am heartened in the fact that nothing will come of this.
That appears to be the Conventional Wisdom, but I'm not so sure...if it was gonna be so easily-defeated, why are the RATS so exercised about debating it on the Senate floor?
"The Democrats are on the correct side of this issue."
We'll haveta agree to disagree on that issue...btw, do you believe gay couples should get equal access for adopting children? Shouldn't they get priority since conceiving children naturally is impossible for them?
