It's time to start thinking about resistance.

[Skylar]

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.

That would be the constitution that indicates that justices are nominated by the president, confirmed by the senate, and hold their office 'during good behavior'.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

That would be the constitution that indicates that justices are nominated by the president, confirmed by the senate, and hold their office 'during good behavior'.

Of course the ding a ling forgets that the system has been short circuited

If a judge amends the constitution under the guise of interpreting the same there is NOTHING we the people can do short of a bloody civil war
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/06/04/thomas-jefferson-on-judicial-tyranny/
Jefferson was plainly alarmed by the possibility of judicial tyranny.

You seem to consider the judges 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 … and their power [are] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and are 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 … . When the legislative or executive functionaries act unconstitutionally, they are responsible to the people in their elective capacity. The exemption of the judges from that is quite dangerous enough. I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves. …. — Letter to Mr. Jarvis, Sept, 1820

 

[Skylar]

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.

That would be the constitution that indicates that justices are nominated by the president, confirmed by the senate, and hold their office 'during good behavior'.

Of course the ding a ling forgets that the system has been short circuited

If a judge amends the constitution under the guise of interpreting the same there is NOTHING we the people can do short of a bloody civil war
Jefferson was plainly alarmed by the possibility of judicial tyranny.

You seem to consider the judges 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 … and their power [are] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and are 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 … . When the legislative or executive functionaries act unconstitutionally, they are responsible to the people in their elective capacity. The exemption of the judges from that is quite dangerous enough. I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves. …. — Letter to Mr. Jarvis, Sept, 1820

And? Jefferson wasn't even in the country when the constitution was written or ratified. He didn't write a single Federalist or anti-Federalist paper. He attended no session of the constitutional congress. And wasn't a representative for any state. You would have a difficult time naming a less relevant founder in the writing of the constitution.

Alexander Hamilton wrote several of the Federalist Papers, including Federalist 78. And with John Jay and James Madison were the single most influential founders in the creation of the new constitution. Remember, the Federalists won. They were the primary crafters of the constitution whose argument carried the day. And the Judiciary checking the legislature was exactly what the founders intended the judiciary to do.

You'd have a difficult time naming a more relevant founder in the writing of the constitution than Alexander Hamilton....save James Madison himself.

It was the judiciary that was tasked with the responsibility to interpret the constitution, the act as an intermediary between the legislature and the people. And to elevate the constitution in exclusion of unconstitutional laws passed by congress.

 

[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.

You bore me, cretin.

Translation: you have no fucking clue where the definition you gave comes from in terms of the Founding Fathers putting it in the Constitution.

Do ya think I didn't already know that when I asked you? I merely wanted to see you put that in writing so everyone else could see.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I guess the OP is still "thinking".

 

[Carla_Danger]

I guess the OP is still "thinking".

I haven't read a thread this dumb since Stephanie's "let's roll" thread. lol

 

[Carla_Danger]

How about if we never let this thread die?

 

[Synthaholic]

Well duh....they aren't done cleaning it up yet.

And this will be your response when Louis Gommert is running for his 10th term, too.

To be honest - I highly doubt they will have it cleaned up by his 10th term. But if they do, my response will be dependent upon his performance.

If he has $10 million in his bank account and is violating the U.S. Constitution daily - just like Nancy Pelosi - I will consider him a typical dirt-bag politician who should not have become a career politician. If, however, he is a man of modest means who is upholding the U.S. Constitution as his oath requires him to, I will respect and praise him.

What do you think of a "performance" that wastes taxpayer money to the tune of over $60 million to repeal Obamacare over 50 times, knowing that Obama will never sign it?

Is that the Tea Party ideal? The ones who constantly bitch about the government spending money? They're frauds from a fraudulent, Astroturfed "movement".

Nancy Pelosi's husband is a very wealthy businessman - I though you wingnuts loved those people? If you have any evidence that she has stolen taxpayer money, put up or shut the fuck up.

Obama Hellcare must be abolished by any means necessary.

It is a socialist unconstitutional scam

.

You just hate successful Democratic policies!

NYT: Immigrants And Low Wage Workers Benefiting The Most From Obamacare

Immigrants -- and specifically, Hispanic immigrants -- are among those benefiting the most from Obamacare, a New York Times analysis published Sunday said. The Times' report on the first full year of Affordable Care Act implementation found that low-wage workers also saw their uninsured rates decrease sharply, as did part-time workers and those with only high school degrees.

"The analysis shows how the law lifted some of the most vulnerable citizens," the Times reported.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

I'm not your son asshole, and you have no business calling anyone an imbecile.

Case law, officer, victim and witness safety require a suspect be detained, secured and searched without a warrant, only probable cause is required and said search is reasonable and legal. The actions of Boston law enforcement after the terrorist attack was an extraordinary example of why a warrant is unnecessary due to the exigency of the situation.

 

[Synthaholic]

the next ideal situation would be to have a Supreme Court filled with true justices (such as Antonin Scalia)

Scalia was an activist Justice, creating laws from the bench and putting his religious beliefs ahead of the Constitution. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

 

[Synthaholic]

Nancy Pelosi's husband became a "very wealthy businessman" because she used her power in Congress to filter contracts to him. And yes, that is well documented (don't be afraid to question your leaders and do a little research on them).

More complete bullshit.

 

[Synthaholic]

And it doesn't "cost" anything for them to vote.

Your ignorance is astounding, though expected.

It costs a lot of money for each bill to be brought to the House. Staffers, aides, printing, etc.

 

[Synthaholic]

Obamacare is 100% unconstitutional

Not according to the SCOTUS. And they are 'The Deciders'.

I seem to remember something in the Constitution about "promoting for the general welfare". I think health care fits that definition.

 

[P@triot]

Well duh....they aren't done cleaning it up yet.

And this will be your response when Louis Gommert is running for his 10th term, too.

To be honest - I highly doubt they will have it cleaned up by his 10th term. But if they do, my response will be dependent upon his performance.

If he has $10 million in his bank account and is violating the U.S. Constitution daily - just like Nancy Pelosi - I will consider him a typical dirt-bag politician who should not have become a career politician. If, however, he is a man of modest means who is upholding the U.S. Constitution as his oath requires him to, I will respect and praise him.

What do you think of a "performance" that wastes taxpayer money to the tune of over $60 million to repeal Obamacare over 50 times, knowing that Obama will never sign it?

Is that the Tea Party ideal? The ones who constantly bitch about the government spending money? They're frauds from a fraudulent, Astroturfed "movement".

Nancy Pelosi's husband is a very wealthy businessman - I though you wingnuts loved those people? If you have any evidence that she has stolen taxpayer money, put up or shut the fuck up.

Obama Hellcare must be abolished by any means necessary.

It is a socialist unconstitutional scam

.

You just hate successful Democratic policies!

NYT: Immigrants And Low Wage Workers Benefiting The Most From Obamacare

Immigrants -- and specifically, Hispanic immigrants -- are among those benefiting the most from Obamacare, a New York Times analysis published Sunday said. The Times' report on the first full year of Affordable Care Act implementation found that low-wage workers also saw their uninsured rates decrease sharply, as did part-time workers and those with only high school degrees.

"The analysis shows how the law lifted some of the most vulnerable citizens," the Times reported.

I'm curious if you're willing to comment on why the biggest unions across the nation which supported it have asked for - and received - exemptions to the law? And what about all of the people who either lost their jobs flat out or had their hours cut because of it? And how about how more institutions in Nancy Pelosi's district requested and received exemotions to the law after being ardent supporters who helped pushed it through?

Any sincere comments or will be forced to endure liberal propaganda talking points?

 

[P@triot]

Obamacare is 100% unconstitutional

Not according to the SCOTUS. And they are 'The Deciders'.

I seem to remember something in the Constitution about "promoting for the general welfare". I think health care fits that definition.

Uh....no they are not. The Constitution itself is the ultimate decider. The federal government is strictly prohibited to 18 enumerated powers and 18 enumerated powers only. The founders were so scared that disingenuous, power hungry people like you would attempt to misconstrue what it says that they actually implemented the 10th Amendment to ensure that would be prevented. It could not be more clear.

And your absurd "interpretation" of the Constitution certainly explains the language you used indicating a vague idea about the document ("I seem to remember"). As someone who does not have vague recollections of some things here or there, but rather has committed significant time and energy to reading it, understanding it thoroughly, and then reading works around it (such as the founders original writings, the Federalist Papers, etc.), I can assure you:

• The "promote the general welfare" section is an explanation for why the American people and the individual states were granting the federal government those specific, enumerated powers. It was not a power in itself.
• Obamacare caused millions of people to lose their jobs or have their hours cut. It was so bad, unions and other supporters requested (and received) exemptions to it. That is not "promoting the general welfare" - that is "negatively impacting and destroying the general welfare in a significant way".
• Neither the federal government nor the Supreme Court have the power to usurp the U.S. Constitution.

These are the facts. And they are indisputable.

 

[P@triot]

And it doesn't "cost" anything for them to vote.

Your ignorance is astounding, though expected.

It costs a lot of money for each bill to be brought to the House. Staffers, aides, printing, etc.

Printing? No...really....printing? Bwahahahahahah!!! In this day and age of technology the bills are all crafted and shared electronically junior.

And staffers? Double bwahahahahahah!!! Those people are already on staff whether they vote to repeal Obamacare to restore constitutional government or vote to pass another mind-numbing liberal regulation just for the sake of passing legislation.

And aides? Triple bwahahahahahah!!! Those people are already on staff whether they vote to repeal Obamacare to restore constitutional government or vote to pass another mind-numbing liberal regulation just for the sake of passing legislation.

So again - there is absolutely no cost to them trying to repeal Obamacare above and beyond the costs that already exist. Man alive - how desperate are you to grasp at some straws to cry about "costs" out of your fear of this unconstitutional crap sandwich being repealed? That was really humiliating. I'm literally cringing for you.

 

[Synthaholic]

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

You sure do spout a lot of buzzwords.

 

[Synthaholic]

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.

You clearly hate the Constitution, which means you hate America.

 

[Faun]

So again - there is absolutely no cost to them trying to repeal Obamacare above and beyond the costs that already exist.

You truly are the dumbest poster here. From saying the economy Bush handed Obama was "just fine" to this dumbfuckery of yours.

Obamacare Repeal Votes Costs Tens Of Millions

Last year, CBS News calculated that the first 33 votes to repeal health care reform took up approximately 80 hours of floor time from the House, or roughly two weeks. The Congressional Research Service said it costs $24 million to run the House for a week, so the first 33 votes cost taxpayers approximately $48 million.​

... and that's an old article. The fucking GOP has since tried another 25 times to repeal or defund ObamaCare.

All that money wasted on ObamaCare reform which could never pass anyway since Obama has the power to veto and the GOP never had the numbers to override Obama's veto.

Even worse for you piece of shit conservatives and Republicans ... even if you could have passed it, it would only have cost us more....

CBO: Repealing Obama healthcare law will increase budget deficit

Congressional budget analysts said Wednesday that repealing ObamaCare would increase the deficit by scrapping the law's taxes, fees and spending cuts.​

 

[Synthaholic]

And what about all of the people who either lost their jobs flat out or had their hours cut because of it?

What about the law directly caused any people to lose their jobs?