It's time to start thinking about resistance.

[jillian]

This is as idiotic as the thread premise, if not more so.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, not as perceived by wrongheaded conservative reactionaries, ignorant libertarians, and TPM nitwits.

If that is so (which it is not) then we are not a republic but a dictatorship of the Judiciary. Rather than a coequal branch, the judicial is the unelected and unquestioned ruler of the nation with power to dictate law as a matter of edict.

A " Constitution [which] exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court," does not exist at all. If the utterance of 9 dictators is the only law, then the existence of laws or Constitutions is merely a farce imposed upon and enslaved people.

you should probably read Marbury v Madison and get back to us.

 

[Uncensored2008]

COTUS does not say S&S is unreasonable without a warrant.

Q. Why does Uncensored2008 lie

A. The truth is his enemy, if he were required to post the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth he would be struck silent.

You son, are an imbecile.

 

[Skylar]

COTUS does not say S&S is unreasonable without a warrant.

Q. Why does Uncensored2008 lie

A. The truth is his enemy, if he were required to post the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth he would be struck silent.

You son, are an imbecile.

Says the poor, hapless soul that insists that the Federalist Papers should be ignored.....because you disagree with them.

 

[Uncensored2008]

A lie by omission, or simply ignorance ^^^?

The Amendments to COTUS are part of the Constitution, not some morphed irrelevancy. If they are, then the 2nd A. has morphed too.

Son, your second grade mentality serves you poorly.

The phrase "natural born" has no bearing on amendments.

{No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President;}

At the time, the common understanding of the phrase was a person born on US soil. That meaning changed for several reasons; one is the expansion of the US interests. A child born of diplomats or service personnel are legally "natural born." This is necessary because we do send people around the globe.

Now look, i know you're just a feral baboon flinging feces madly at perceived enemies of your shameful party, but you really do come off as stupid.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

Says the poor, hapless soul that insists that the Federalist Papers should be ignored.....because you disagree with them.

Oh, I said that did I?

 

[Uncensored2008]

you should probably read Marbury v Madison and get back to us.

You should probably take an introductory to legal concepts class.

 

[Skylar]

[

Says the poor, hapless soul that insists that the Federalist Papers should be ignored.....because you disagree with them.

Oh, I said that did I?

Laughing.....so you're *not* ignoring Federalist 78 and its description of the role of the judiciary?

It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

Well that was easy!

 

[Uncensored2008]

Based upon what was that the meaning of that phrase when quill inked our sacred parchment?

I assume your clumsy phrasing is an interrogative as to why the requirement was included.

Simply so that foreign operatives could not gain the presidency.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Laughing.....so you're *not* ignoring Federalist 78 and its description of the role of the judiciary?

It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

Well that was easy!

So you think a letter to the editor is superior to the Constitution?



The is a reason you are a leftist.

 

[Skylar]

Laughing.....so you're *not* ignoring Federalist 78 and its description of the role of the judiciary?

It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

Well that was easy!

So you think a letter to the editor is superior to the Constitution?

The constitution according to who? Remember, your interpretation of the constitution is just you citing yourself. While Hamilton's description of the judiciary is exactly what we actually have.

You're insisting that you know better. Both the Federalist Papers, history and centuries of legal precedent say otherwise.

Try again.

 

[Faun]

Based upon what was that the meaning of that phrase when quill inked our sacred parchment?

I assume your clumsy phrasing is an interrogative as to why the requirement was included.

Simply so that foreign operatives could not gain the presidency.

As usual, your assumptions fail you. That was not what I asked. Did you really complete the 7th grade? Even a 7th grader could understand I asked where you based your claim that, "one born on US Soil," was what the term, natural born citizen, meant in 1787.

 

[Contumacious]

[

Says the poor, hapless soul that insists that the Federalist Papers should be ignored.....because you disagree with them.

Oh, I said that did I?

Laughing.....so you're *not* ignoring Federalist 78 and its description of the role of the judiciary?

It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

Well that was easy!

Farting.......so she pretends to be supporting Alexander Hamilton position 's in Federalist #78

Except that as a government supremacist she isn't:

Alexander Hamilton:

"If, then, the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments, this consideration will afford a strong argument for the permanent tenure of judicial offices, since nothing will contribute so much as this to that independent spirit in the judges which must be essential to the faithful performance of so arduous a duty."

So Hamilton considered the courts to be bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments, - so Article III Justices are supposed to be IMPARTIAL AND NEUTRAL

But you noticed how the slut did not and could not explain how is it that if we have IMPARTIAL AND NEUTRAL Justices, ie, Justices that are not FASCISTS, SOCIALISTS and GOVERNMENT SUPREMACISTS

then how did the US become a gargantuan bankrupt welfare/warfare police state.

 

[Skylar]

[

Says the poor, hapless soul that insists that the Federalist Papers should be ignored.....because you disagree with them.

Oh, I said that did I?

Laughing.....so you're *not* ignoring Federalist 78 and its description of the role of the judiciary?

It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

Well that was easy!

Farting.......so she pretends to be supporting Alexander Hamilton position 's in Federalist #78

Except that as a government supremacis t she isn't:

Alexander Hamilton:

"If, then, the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments, this consideration will afford a strong argument for the permanent tenure of judicial offices, since nothing will contribute so much as this to that independent spirit in the judges which must be essential to the faithful performance of so arduous a duty."

So Hamilton considered the courts to be bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments, - so Article III Justices are supposed to be IMPARTIAL AND NEUTRAL

But you noticed how the slut did not and could not explain how is it that if we have IMPARTIAL AND NEUTRAL Justices, ie, Justices that are not FASCISTS, SOCIALISTS and GOVERNMENT SUPREMACISTS

All you're doing is calling the justices names. And then insisting that because you called them names, they're constitutionally disqualified to be justices.

There's one major hole in your argument: You're navel lint, constitutionally speaking. No where does the constitution indicate that the qualifications of a supreme court justice are dependent on YOU calling them names. Your personal opinion has no relevance to any part of their nomination, confirmation, qualifications, authority or rulings. You're nobody.

Thus we're left with what Hamilton actually argued for in the Federalist Papers:

It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.
​

Which is exactly what the Supreme Court actually does.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Based upon what was that the meaning of that phrase when quill inked our sacred parchment?

I assume your clumsy phrasing is an interrogative as to why the requirement was included.

Simply so that foreign operatives could not gain the presidency.

As usual, your assumptions fail you. That was not what I asked. Did you really complete the 7th grade? Even a 7th grader could understand I asked where you based your claim that, "one born on US Soil," was what the term, natural born citizen, meant in 1787.

You bore me, cretin.

 

[Contumacious]

[

Says the poor, hapless soul that insists that the Federalist Papers should be ignored.....because you disagree with them.

Oh, I said that did I?

Laughing.....so you're *not* ignoring Federalist 78 and its description of the role of the judiciary?

It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

Well that was easy!

Farting.......so she pretends to be supporting Alexander Hamilton position 's in Federalist #78

Except that as a government supremacis t she isn't:

Alexander Hamilton:

"If, then, the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments, this consideration will afford a strong argument for the permanent tenure of judicial offices, since nothing will contribute so much as this to that independent spirit in the judges which must be essential to the faithful performance of so arduous a duty."

So Hamilton considered the courts to be bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments, - so Article III Justices are supposed to be IMPARTIAL AND NEUTRAL

But you noticed how the slut did not and could not explain how is it that if we have IMPARTIAL AND NEUTRAL Justices, ie, Justices that are not FASCISTS, SOCIALISTS and GOVERNMENT SUPREMACISTS

All you're doing is calling the justices names. And then insisting that because you called them names, they're constitutionally disqualified to be justices.

There's one major hole in your argument: You're navel lint, constitutionally speaking. No where does the constitution indicate that the qualifications of a supreme court justice are dependent on YOU calling them names. Your personal opinion has no relevance to any part of their nomination, confirmation, qualifications, authority or rulings. You're nobody.

Thus we're left with what Hamilton actually argued for in the Federalist Papers:

It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.
​

Which is exactly what the Supreme Court actually does.

All you are doing is looking the other way and acting as an apologists for the bureaucrats in black robes


"In too many states, judicial elections are becoming political prizefights where partisans and special interests seek to install judges who will answer to them instead of the law and the Constitution."


--Justice Sandra Day O'Connor


Chief Justice Roberts Is an Economic Fascist
By Gary North

July 2, 2012


The Brandeis/Frankfurter Connection: The Secret Political Activities of Two Supreme Court Justices

 

[HenryBHough]

So deliciously delightful - watching Democrats morph into The New Birfers!

 

[Skylar]

[

Says the poor, hapless soul that insists that the Federalist Papers should be ignored.....because you disagree with them.

Oh, I said that did I?

Laughing.....so you're *not* ignoring Federalist 78 and its description of the role of the judiciary?

It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

Well that was easy!

Farting.......so she pretends to be supporting Alexander Hamilton position 's in Federalist #78

Except that as a government supremacis t she isn't:

Alexander Hamilton:

"If, then, the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments, this consideration will afford a strong argument for the permanent tenure of judicial offices, since nothing will contribute so much as this to that independent spirit in the judges which must be essential to the faithful performance of so arduous a duty."

So Hamilton considered the courts to be bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments, - so Article III Justices are supposed to be IMPARTIAL AND NEUTRAL

But you noticed how the slut did not and could not explain how is it that if we have IMPARTIAL AND NEUTRAL Justices, ie, Justices that are not FASCISTS, SOCIALISTS and GOVERNMENT SUPREMACISTS

All you're doing is calling the justices names. And then insisting that because you called them names, they're constitutionally disqualified to be justices.

There's one major hole in your argument: You're navel lint, constitutionally speaking. No where does the constitution indicate that the qualifications of a supreme court justice are dependent on YOU calling them names. Your personal opinion has no relevance to any part of their nomination, confirmation, qualifications, authority or rulings. You're nobody.

Thus we're left with what Hamilton actually argued for in the Federalist Papers:

It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.
​

Which is exactly what the Supreme Court actually does.

All you are doing is looking the other way and acting as an apologists for the bureaucrats in black robes


"In too many states, judicial elections are becoming political prizefights where partisans and special interests seek to install judges who will answer to them instead of the law and the Constitution."


--Justice Sandra Day O'Connor


Chief Justice Roberts Is an Economic Fascist
By Gary North

July 2, 2012


The Brandeis/Frankfurter Connection: The Secret Political Activities of Two Supreme Court Justices

The Supreme Court justices aren't elected. You're clearly confused.

Try again.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Oh, I said that did I?

Laughing.....so you're *not* ignoring Federalist 78 and its description of the role of the judiciary?

It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

Well that was easy!

Farting.......so she pretends to be supporting Alexander Hamilton position 's in Federalist #78

Except that as a government supremacis t she isn't:

Alexander Hamilton:

"If, then, the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments, this consideration will afford a strong argument for the permanent tenure of judicial offices, since nothing will contribute so much as this to that independent spirit in the judges which must be essential to the faithful performance of so arduous a duty."

So Hamilton considered the courts to be bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments, - so Article III Justices are supposed to be IMPARTIAL AND NEUTRAL

But you noticed how the slut did not and could not explain how is it that if we have IMPARTIAL AND NEUTRAL Justices, ie, Justices that are not FASCISTS, SOCIALISTS and GOVERNMENT SUPREMACISTS

All you're doing is calling the justices names. And then insisting that because you called them names, they're constitutionally disqualified to be justices.

There's one major hole in your argument: You're navel lint, constitutionally speaking. No where does the constitution indicate that the qualifications of a supreme court justice are dependent on YOU calling them names. Your personal opinion has no relevance to any part of their nomination, confirmation, qualifications, authority or rulings. You're nobody.

Thus we're left with what Hamilton actually argued for in the Federalist Papers:

It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.
​

Which is exactly what the Supreme Court actually does.

All you are doing is looking the other way and acting as an apologists for the bureaucrats in black robes


"In too many states, judicial elections are becoming political prizefights where partisans and special interests seek to install judges who will answer to them instead of the law and the Constitution."


--Justice Sandra Day O'Connor


Chief Justice Roberts Is an Economic Fascist
By Gary North

July 2, 2012


The Brandeis/Frankfurter Connection: The Secret Political Activities of Two Supreme Court Justices

The Supreme Court justices aren't elected. You're clearly confused.

Try again.

Indeed, for once you are right. They are "appointed" by whatever president is sitting his fat ass in the oval office for one reason and one reason ONLY - to do his bidding. The worst part? They park their fat asses on the bench for the rest of their lives.

 

[Skylar]

Laughing.....so you're *not* ignoring Federalist 78 and its description of the role of the judiciary?

Well that was easy!

Farting.......so she pretends to be supporting Alexander Hamilton position 's in Federalist #78

Except that as a government supremacis t she isn't:

Alexander Hamilton:

"If, then, the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments, this consideration will afford a strong argument for the permanent tenure of judicial offices, since nothing will contribute so much as this to that independent spirit in the judges which must be essential to the faithful performance of so arduous a duty."

So Hamilton considered the courts to be bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments, - so Article III Justices are supposed to be IMPARTIAL AND NEUTRAL

But you noticed how the slut did not and could not explain how is it that if we have IMPARTIAL AND NEUTRAL Justices, ie, Justices that are not FASCISTS, SOCIALISTS and GOVERNMENT SUPREMACISTS

All you're doing is calling the justices names. And then insisting that because you called them names, they're constitutionally disqualified to be justices.

There's one major hole in your argument: You're navel lint, constitutionally speaking. No where does the constitution indicate that the qualifications of a supreme court justice are dependent on YOU calling them names. Your personal opinion has no relevance to any part of their nomination, confirmation, qualifications, authority or rulings. You're nobody.

Thus we're left with what Hamilton actually argued for in the Federalist Papers:

It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.
​

Which is exactly what the Supreme Court actually does.

All you are doing is looking the other way and acting as an apologists for the bureaucrats in black robes


"In too many states, judicial elections are becoming political prizefights where partisans and special interests seek to install judges who will answer to them instead of the law and the Constitution."


--Justice Sandra Day O'Connor


Chief Justice Roberts Is an Economic Fascist
By Gary North

July 2, 2012


The Brandeis/Frankfurter Connection: The Secret Political Activities of Two Supreme Court Justices

The Supreme Court justices aren't elected. You're clearly confused.

Try again.

Indeed, for once you are right. They are "appointed" by whatever president is sitting his fat ass in the oval office for one reason and one reason ONLY - to do his bidding. The worst part? They park their fat asses on the bench for the rest of their lives.

Nominated by the president, confirmed by the senate, and on the bench for life.

Huh. I wonder where this idea came from.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Farting.......so she pretends to be supporting Alexander Hamilton position 's in Federalist #78

Except that as a government supremacis t she isn't:

Alexander Hamilton:

"If, then, the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments, this consideration will afford a strong argument for the permanent tenure of judicial offices, since nothing will contribute so much as this to that independent spirit in the judges which must be essential to the faithful performance of so arduous a duty."

So Hamilton considered the courts to be bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments, - so Article III Justices are supposed to be IMPARTIAL AND NEUTRAL

But you noticed how the slut did not and could not explain how is it that if we have IMPARTIAL AND NEUTRAL Justices, ie, Justices that are not FASCISTS, SOCIALISTS and GOVERNMENT SUPREMACISTS

All you're doing is calling the justices names. And then insisting that because you called them names, they're constitutionally disqualified to be justices.

There's one major hole in your argument: You're navel lint, constitutionally speaking. No where does the constitution indicate that the qualifications of a supreme court justice are dependent on YOU calling them names. Your personal opinion has no relevance to any part of their nomination, confirmation, qualifications, authority or rulings. You're nobody.

Thus we're left with what Hamilton actually argued for in the Federalist Papers:

It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.
​

Which is exactly what the Supreme Court actually does.

All you are doing is looking the other way and acting as an apologists for the bureaucrats in black robes


"In too many states, judicial elections are becoming political prizefights where partisans and special interests seek to install judges who will answer to them instead of the law and the Constitution."


--Justice Sandra Day O'Connor


Chief Justice Roberts Is an Economic Fascist
By Gary North

July 2, 2012


The Brandeis/Frankfurter Connection: The Secret Political Activities of Two Supreme Court Justices

The Supreme Court justices aren't elected. You're clearly confused.

Try again.

Indeed, for once you are right. They are "appointed" by whatever president is sitting his fat ass in the oval office for one reason and one reason ONLY - to do his bidding. The worst part? They park their fat asses on the bench for the rest of their lives.

Nominated by the president, confirmed by the senate, and on the bench for life.

Huh. I wonder where this idea came from.

Who the hell cares? It is what it is - we are strapped with those clowns forever. And yes, I mean CLOWNS.