Elena Kagan to be nominated for supreme court

[JakeStarkey]

I have pointed that out to him repeatedly, he says he accepts Marbury, but he wants to know something that I did not state. Typical far righty conloon nonsense.

 

[Political Junky]

What do you have against Maddow? She's a Rhodes Scholar with a doctorate from Oxford.
I think Rachel enjoys her job exposing Cons for their dishonesty. She backs it all up with facts. Video is something Cons apparently are still unaware of.

Bill Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar too. And he also liked the bearded clam. But that doesn't mean he had any sense or was worth listening to.

Senator Vitter was a Rhodes Scholar, and a whore monger.

 

[The Rabbi]

Bill Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar too. And he also liked the bearded clam. But that doesn't mean he had any sense or was worth listening to.

Senator Vitter was a Rhodes Scholar, and a whore monger.

Good. So it's settled. No one who got a Rhodes should be allowed in public service. Except maybe Wizzer White.

 

[Stainmaster]

Breaking:
Elena Kagan To Be Nominated To Supreme Court By Obama To Replace Justice John Paul Stevens

NBC is reporting that Elena Kagan will be nominated to the Supreme Court by Barack Obama.

From everything I have read about Elena Kagen she is a qualified jurist to sit on the U. S. Supreme Court.

 

[saveliberty]

Breaking:
Elena Kagan To Be Nominated To Supreme Court By Obama To Replace Justice John Paul Stevens

NBC is reporting that Elena Kagan will be nominated to the Supreme Court by Barack Obama.

From everything I have read about Elena Kagen she is a qualified jurist to sit on the U. S. Supreme Court.

I call cow poop. The woman has written very little and what there is has little of an opinion. Her biggest foray into the Supreme COurt realm was her brief against the Solomon Amendment and she got her ass handed to her 9-0.

 

[DiamondDave]

Yes.. you did...

You have asserted that the power to "make sure the American Dream prospers" exists for the judiciary
I have shown that the constitution is where the branches of our federal government derive their power
I have also shown that nowhere within the constitution, does your power exist in any text
You have asserted via your opposition, that they have that power (to make sure the American dream prospers) due to precedent in Marbury v Madison wherein they gave themselves to power to give themselves power without the amendment process
I have shown that nowhere in the findings, that I have read over an over, does Marbury v Madison grant the power to grant powers to the judiciary
I have stated my assertion and opinion that judicial review and declaring something unconstitutional, is not the same as adding a constitutional power or saying that a power is granted

Now... again.. please state where the judiciary has the power to "make sure the American Dream prospers".... and please, if this power is not found in the constitution, cite where this power is derived from... state it for the record, jokey.. instead of beating around the bush... cover your whole list of assertions, in order

oh... and while you are at it.. please show us these "human guarantees" within the constitution, that you say exist

Bump

did you bother reading marbury?

without judicial review, there isn't anything to make sure that the legislative and executive branches act within constitutional boundaries.

THAT is how the constitution works... courts look at what EFFECTUATES ITS INTENT... there is no BS about 'originalism' or some retarded fundie version of the constitution. Do you really think anyone was stupid enough to require an amendment every time a question as to constitutionality arose?

Again Jill... judicial review is NOT giving the judiciary power to add constitutional powers to themselves... we are not talking about the judiciary reviewing the constitutionality of a decision/statute/etc

Jokey stated a power that does not exist and cannot even cite a single reference anywhere in law where it exists... the little fucker, AGAIN, is caught with his unsubstantiated claims... and the stubborn idiot just won't back off his crap

 

[DiamondDave]

I have pointed that out to him repeatedly, he says he accepts Marbury, but he wants to know something that I did not state. Typical far righty conloon nonsense.

Epic fail, jokey

I showed you your statement in direct quote from your post....

You are a lying, disingenuous piece of shit that I would not walk across the street to piss on if you were on fire

 

[Care4all]

all you have to be is smart imo....with no experience at all...one can read the documents, the constitution, the case, etc.... and figure out if it meets constitutional muster...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Breaking:
Elena Kagan To Be Nominated To Supreme Court By Obama To Replace Justice John Paul Stevens

From everything I have read about Elena Kagen she is a qualified jurist to sit on the U. S. Supreme Court.

I call cow poop. The woman has written very little and what there is has little of an opinion. Her biggest foray into the Supreme COurt realm was her brief against the Solomon Amendment and she got her ass handed to her 9-0.

EK is incredibly more qualified than Miers, who was far more qualified than Sarah Palin.

 

[JakeStarkey]

DiamondDave has been backed into a corner by Jillian and others, and all he can do is opine poorly. Then when he fails, he whines and behaves stupidly.

 

[DiamondDave]

You have asserted that the power to "make sure the American Dream prospers" exists for the judiciary

Back it up jokey... show ANYWHERE in the constitution or legal precedent that this power is granted to the judiciary

We've been waiting for days now

 

[JakeStarkey]

I opined against your opinion and asked you for evidence. For some reason you don't want to give it. Little davy, you have to more than post the Constitution. Until you can argue for and give solid evidence, I can opine all day long.

You righties really are dumb. You want to post an opinion and have your opponents give evidence against it. That's stupid, davy. The burden of proof is on you, son.

You are a fail.

 

[DiamondDave]

I opined against your opinion and asked you for evidence. For some reason you don't want to give it. Little davy, you have to more than post the Constitution. Until you can argue for and give solid evidence, I can opine all day long.

You righties really are dumb. You want to post an opinion and have your opponents give evidence against it. That's stupid, davy. The burden of proof is on you, son.

You are a fail.

No idiot.. YOU made the claim of the power... You were asked to cite evidence of ANY sort backing up your claim.. you have failed to do so... YOU made the claim first and foremost... YOU, jokey.. I did not even post in this thread until AFTER you made that initial claim....

You are exposed as a pure liar and bullshit artist, yet again

 

[DiamondDave]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...ominated-for-supreme-court-8.html#post2291463

 

[jillian]

I opined against your opinion and asked you for evidence. For some reason you don't want to give it. Little davy, you have to more than post the Constitution. Until you can argue for and give solid evidence, I can opine all day long.

You righties really are dumb. You want to post an opinion and have your opponents give evidence against it. That's stupid, davy. The burden of proof is on you, son.

You are a fail.

No idiot.. YOU made the claim of the power... You were asked to cite evidence of ANY sort backing up your claim.. you have failed to do so... YOU made the claim first and foremost... YOU, jokey.. I did not even post in this thread until AFTER you made that initial claim....

You are exposed as a pure liar and bullshit artist, yet again

DD, you're simply wrong on this one. And, no offense, I understand why you think the way you do, but I think that's based on misinformation and some incorrect belief that constitutional construction and our common law system have no binding effect. They have far more binding effect than the words of some politicians 200 plus years ago.

And this is really why I object to the screamers who pretend they understand the constitution and tell lay people incorrect, incomprehensible things.

 

[DiamondDave]

I opined against your opinion and asked you for evidence. For some reason you don't want to give it. Little davy, you have to more than post the Constitution. Until you can argue for and give solid evidence, I can opine all day long.

You righties really are dumb. You want to post an opinion and have your opponents give evidence against it. That's stupid, davy. The burden of proof is on you, son.

You are a fail.

No idiot.. YOU made the claim of the power... You were asked to cite evidence of ANY sort backing up your claim.. you have failed to do so... YOU made the claim first and foremost... YOU, jokey.. I did not even post in this thread until AFTER you made that initial claim....

You are exposed as a pure liar and bullshit artist, yet again

DD, you're simply wrong on this one. And, no offense, I understand why you think the way you do, but I think that's based on misinformation and some incorrect belief that constitutional construction and our common law system have no binding effect. They have far more binding effect than the words of some politicians 200 plus years ago.

And this is really why I object to the screamers who pretend they understand the constitution and tell lay people incorrect, incomprehensible things.

Jill.. no.. you indeed are wrong

The judicial has no power to grant itself powers... what gives a specific power to a federal government branch is indeed the constitution... to add, delete, or change the constitution takes the amendment process

And again... judicial review is not what is being argued... judicial review =/= giving the judiciary the power to grant powers.. they do not have the EXECUTIVE power to grant this, nor to the have the LEGISLATIVE authority to write or rewrite law

Again... jokey proclaimed the existence of a power.... has been asked to cite ANYWHERE that the alleged power is stated... ANYWHERE... and stating Marbury v Madison does not show that that power exists or has been granted

 

[jillian]

No idiot.. YOU made the claim of the power... You were asked to cite evidence of ANY sort backing up your claim.. you have failed to do so... YOU made the claim first and foremost... YOU, jokey.. I did not even post in this thread until AFTER you made that initial claim....

You are exposed as a pure liar and bullshit artist, yet again

DD, you're simply wrong on this one. And, no offense, I understand why you think the way you do, but I think that's based on misinformation and some incorrect belief that constitutional construction and our common law system have no binding effect. They have far more binding effect than the words of some politicians 200 plus years ago.

And this is really why I object to the screamers who pretend they understand the constitution and tell lay people incorrect, incomprehensible things.

Jill.. no.. you indeed are wrong

The judicial has no power to grant itself powers... what gives a specific power to a federal government branch is indeed the constitution... to add, delete, or change the constitution takes the amendment process

And again... judicial review is not what is being argued... judicial review =/= giving the judiciary the power to grant powers.. they do not have the EXECUTIVE power to grant this, nor to the have the LEGISLATIVE authority to write or rewrite law

Again... jokey proclaimed the existence of a power.... has been asked to cite ANYWHERE that the alleged power is stated... ANYWHERE... and stating Marbury v Madison does not show that that power exists or has been granted

no. i'm not wrong on this. but you're going to believe what you want, which is fine, so long as people who think like you don't get to warp our body of constitutional law.

 

[saveliberty]

I opined against your opinion and asked you for evidence. For some reason you don't want to give it. Little davy, you have to more than post the Constitution. Until you can argue for and give solid evidence, I can opine all day long.

You righties really are dumb. You want to post an opinion and have your opponents give evidence against it. That's stupid, davy. The burden of proof is on you, son.

You are a fail.

No idiot.. YOU made the claim of the power... You were asked to cite evidence of ANY sort backing up your claim.. you have failed to do so... YOU made the claim first and foremost... YOU, jokey.. I did not even post in this thread until AFTER you made that initial claim....

You are exposed as a pure liar and bullshit artist, yet again

DD, you're simply wrong on this one. And, no offense, I understand why you think the way you do, but I think that's based on misinformation and some incorrect belief that constitutional construction and our common law system have no binding effect. They have far more binding effect than the words of some politicians 200 plus years ago.

And this is really why I object to the screamers who pretend they understand the constitution and tell lay people incorrect, incomprehensible things.

Whoa! Hold the spin there Jillian. The Supreme Court has no say over common law unless a Constitutional issue is raised and the court accepts the review. Once it goes to the level of the Supreme Court, indeed, the Constitution better be at the heart of the ruling and those "words of some politicans 200 plus years ago" become very important.

 

[Gatekeeper]

Here comes more information on the REAL Elena Kagan

WTF is happening to America, Obama's "America of Change"

Kagan Says ‘Governmental Motive’ is Proper Focus in First Amendment Cases, Backs Limits on Speech That Can ‘Harm’

So does that mean ANY SPEECH that OFFENDS someone? They can claim "Harm" in many ways. WTF!
Of course there may be good and bad to this whole mess. Time will tell.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/65720

Welcome to the "New America" folks.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Don't knucklehead like DiamondDave, please, saveliberty. Jillian has explained far more patiently than I would how the system works. Your interpretation contravenes American history, judicial as well as political.