Log of Liberal Lies

[P@triot]

which requires constitutional interpretation...

no matter how large you make your type.

thanks for your 'expertise'.

But lets dumb this down for you liberals here. According to you, the US Constitution is "living" lol: - seriously, that never stops being hilarious) and at the mercy of the "interpretation" of the US Supreme Court, right?

So that means, if tomorrow the Supreme Court "interprets" that all liberals are a threat to national security, and should be executed, and that black people must be enslaved again for the good of the economy, you would 100% support that right? You wouldn't argue or feel that either of those are the slightest bit "unconstitutional"?

Yes or No - answer the question "counselor"...

 

[P@triot]

Thomas Jefferson had a belief as to what the government should be. So did Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, Martin Luther King, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, The Taco Bell Dog (I think)...I'm saying everyone has a belief. You BELIEVE, for instance that the Constitution is a concrete document and therefore nothing that isn't in it should be considered.

But lets dumb this down for you liberals here. According to you, the US Constitution is "living" lol: - seriously, that never stops being hilarious) and at the mercy of the "interpretation" of the US Supreme Court, right?

So that means, if tomorrow the Supreme Court "BELIEVES" that all liberals are a threat to national security, and should be executed, and that black people must be enslaved again for the good of the economy, you would 100% support that right? You wouldn't argue or feel that either of those are the slightest bit "unconstitutional"?

Yes or No - answer the question stupid...

 

[Uncensored2008]

But lets dumb this down for you liberals here. According to you, the US Constitution is "living" lol: - seriously, that never stops being hilarious) and at the mercy of the "interpretation" of the US Supreme Court, right?

So that means, if tomorrow the Supreme Court "interprets" that all liberals are a threat to national security, and should be executed, and that black people must be enslaved again for the good of the economy, you would 100% support that right? You wouldn't argue or feel that either of those are the slightest bit "unconstitutional"?

Yes or No - answer the question "counselor"...

Don't expect an answer.

Jillian spouts ThinkProgress talking points, she has no ability to actually think.

Jefferson warned of a "tyranny of the judiciary." (Jillian is wondering when the little black guy with the dry cleaning business said that...) He saw Marbury and a means of subverting the constitution. The left agrees, and embraces the opportunity.

 

[P@triot]

I told you, Dumbfuck, it's not that private charity is BAD. I'm not saying that. I'm saying it's unreliable and it doesn't completely solve the problem. Ireland has a 14% unemployment rate. Move there. Enjoy the fuck out of Austerity.

As usual, I noticed you failed to answer the question. When has Communism/Marxism/Socialism ever worked, stupid? Your "beliefs" collapsed a former super power that used to be known as the U.S.S.R. (go read about it, stupid). Your "beliefs" collapsed Greece. Your "beliefs" are currently collapsing Spain and England. And your "beliefs" have kept Cuba in perpetual poverty, stupid.

Only a monumentla idiot (ie a liberal) believes in spending money you don't have. You people and your "beliefs" have collapsed economies world wide, and you've take the US to the brink of collapse now.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Looks like Maya Wiley removed some information from her site. Too bad, it would put this whole thing into context.

But come on, you don't think Pub's don't also get training from people to call Obama a "socialist" or a "marxist" and makes comparisons to Soviet Russia? Dem's pander to poor minorities, Repubs pander to poor white christians.

Training??? all you have to do is look at Obama's (and progressives in general) actions..

Taking over companies, redistributing trillions to labor unions, then stimulating them by smashing cars hence creating a demand - all at the taxpayers expense... Lets not forget Obamacare. Obama apparently believes he can just force people to buy insurance or depend on government for insurance....

Obama is a fascist er national socialist if anything. He thinks he can do whatever he wants - he has no respect for liberty or Constitution.

Only a fucking dictator would sue a state for enforcing immigration laws....

He's easily the most partisan president we ever had - not to mention he promised transparency....

Not to mention his "bro" entourage of Holder, Van Jones, McKinney, Shelia Jackson etc who are the biggest fucking racists...

Then he throws 100's of millions at "green energy" companies that create like 3 jobs and other ones that just go bankrupt...

Of course anyone who dares to get angry about this shit is just a "racist..." Yeah like I would agree with the shit if his other half was white.....

Obama is a massive clueless fuckup....

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Wow. There is so much stupid FLOWING from the fingers of Rottweiler and Uncensored in this thread. It's awesome.

Listen, Rottweiler, I'm not going to engage in any more "Debate" with you because you clearly lack the very fundamental and rudimentary knowledge of Constitutional law and practice in order to really speak from any place of intelligence. I mean that. You are completely ignorant (loudly so) to the concepts we're all taught before we have pubic hair. Your problem is that you THINK your opinion on how it SHOULD work is fact. But it's not.

You've been told time and time and time again that you're wrong about this issue, and even by other Conservatives on this board. Of course the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. In order to evaluate the Constitutionality of laws, they must compare those laws to the Constitution. In other words, they are interpreting the Constitution's intent to that of the law in question.

The fact that you'd deny this shows that you actually don't know what one of the Supreme Court's most important roles really means. The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, and has been doing so forever. That's their main charge actually, dumbfuck, is to interpret the laws of the land by way of the Constitution. All your blustering, all your bold text, all your really weak attempts to "own" me? They fall short because you don't have the platform of knowledge that a fifth grader would have on this topic. Therefore, you're not really worth my time anymore.

(Editor's Note: If you need to declare that you "owned" someone...you didn't.)

Here, I'll answer my own question about Conservative Activism in the High Court:

Bush V. Gore 2000 - Stopped a lawful recount and declared a winner in an election.

Citizens United vs. The Federal Election Commission 2010 - Ruled that no law can limit corporate campaign contributions. No matter what UncensoredDummy says, this is a case where the First Amendment is a corner stone because the SCOTUS ruled based on the assumption that money equals speech, hence WHY corporate (and union) donations cannot be limited. Uncensored doesn't get this, because he understands nuance about as well as he hunderstands thermonuclear dynamics. But it's still true.

Dredd Scott Vs. Sanford 1857 - Ruled that slaves have no Constitutional rights.

Plessy Vs. Ferguson 1897 - Upheld separate but equal laws

 

[Mr.Nick]

I told you, Dumbfuck, it's not that private charity is BAD. I'm not saying that. I'm saying it's unreliable and it doesn't completely solve the problem. Ireland has a 14% unemployment rate. Move there. Enjoy the fuck out of Austerity.

As usual, I noticed you failed to answer the question. When has Communism/Marxism/Socialism ever worked, stupid? Your "beliefs" collapsed a former super power that used to be known as the U.S.S.R. (go read about it, stupid). Your "beliefs" collapsed Greece. Your "beliefs" are currently collapsing Spain and England. And your "beliefs" have kept Cuba in perpetual poverty, stupid.

Only a monumentla idiot (ie a liberal) believes in spending money you don't have. You people and your "beliefs" have collapsed economies world wide, and you've take the US to the brink of collapse now.

Let's not forget China (Mao's China), Pol Pots Cambodia, Vietnam, North Korea etc....

Socialism has failed every time it has been tried. Not to mention It has only been around for 100 or so years really - and look at how many times the idea has failed.

Capitalism on the other hand has been successful for the last 2000 years at least.

 

[BDBoop]

Wow. There is so much stupid FLOWING from the fingers of Rottweiler and Uncensored in this thread. It's awesome.

Listen, Rottweiler, I'm not going to engage in any more "Debate" with you because you clearly lack the very fundamental and rudimentary knowledge of Constitutional law and practice in order to really speak from any place of intelligence. I mean that. You are completely ignorant (loudly so) to the concepts we're all taught before we have pubic hair. Your problem is that you THINK your opinion on how it SHOULD work is fact. But it's not.

You've been told time and time and time again that you're wrong about this issue, and even by other Conservatives on this board. Of course the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. In order to evaluate the Constitutionality of laws, they must compare those laws to the Constitution. In other words, they are interpreting the Constitution's intent to that of the law in question.

The fact that you'd deny this shows that you actually don't know what one of the Supreme Court's most important roles really means. The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, and has been doing so forever. That's their main charge actually, dumbfuck, is to interpret the laws of the land by way of the Constitution. All your blustering, all your bold text, all your really weak attempts to "own" me? They fall short because you don't have the platform of knowledge that a fifth grader would have on this topic. Therefore, you're not really worth my time anymore.

(Editor's Note: If you need to declare that you "owned" someone...you didn't.)

Here, I'll answer my own question about Conservative Activism in the High Court:

Bush V. Gore 2000 - Stopped a lawful recount and declared a winner in an election.

Citizens United vs. The Federal Election Commission 2010 - Ruled that no law can limit corporate campaign contributions. No matter what UncensoredDummy says, this is a case where the First Amendment is a corner stone because the SCOTUS ruled based on the assumption that money equals speech, hence WHY corporate (and union) donations cannot be limited. Uncensored doesn't get this, because he understands nuance about as well as he hunderstands thermonuclear dynamics. But it's still true.

Dredd Scott Vs. Sanford 1857 - Ruled that slaves have no Constitutional rights.

Plessy Vs. Ferguson 1897 - Upheld separate but equal laws

 

[Mr.Nick]

Wow. There is so much stupid FLOWING from the fingers of Rottweiler and Uncensored in this thread. It's awesome.

Listen, Rottweiler, I'm not going to engage in any more "Debate" with you because you clearly lack the very fundamental and rudimentary knowledge of Constitutional law and practice in order to really speak from any place of intelligence. I mean that. You are completely ignorant (loudly so) to the concepts we're all taught before we have pubic hair. Your problem is that you THINK your opinion on how it SHOULD work is fact. But it's not.

You've been told time and time and time again that you're wrong about this issue, and even by other Conservatives on this board. Of course the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. In order to evaluate the Constitutionality of laws, they must compare those laws to the Constitution. In other words, they are interpreting the Constitution's intent to that of the law in question.

The fact that you'd deny this shows that you actually don't know what one of the Supreme Court's most important roles really means. The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, and has been doing so forever. That's their main charge actually, dumbfuck, is to interpret the laws of the land by way of the Constitution. All your blustering, all your bold text, all your really weak attempts to "own" me? They fall short because you don't have the platform of knowledge that a fifth grader would have on this topic. Therefore, you're not really worth my time anymore.

(Editor's Note: If you need to declare that you "owned" someone...you didn't.)

Here, I'll answer my own question about Conservative Activism in the High Court:

Bush V. Gore 2000 - Stopped a lawful recount and declared a winner in an election.

Citizens United vs. The Federal Election Commission 2010 - Ruled that no law can limit corporate campaign contributions. No matter what UncensoredDummy says, this is a case where the First Amendment is a corner stone because the SCOTUS ruled based on the assumption that money equals speech, hence WHY corporate (and union) donations cannot be limited. Uncensored doesn't get this, because he understands nuance about as well as he hunderstands thermonuclear dynamics. But it's still true.

Dredd Scott Vs. Sanford 1857 - Ruled that slaves have no Constitutional rights.

Plessy Vs. Ferguson 1897 - Upheld separate but equal laws

The SCOTUS is useless.

The Bill of Rights and the other 17 Amendments are CLEAR...

May as well have the SCOTUS interpret Green Eggs and Ham because that is really how simple our Constitution is.

Truth is progressives just want to rewrite the document(s)....

It's no secret you progressive fucks hate the founding documents - that's why you fucks say stupid shit like "you cons want to live like its 1800 - you need to get with the times."

No you assholes need to obey and respect the fucking documents....

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Once again, the fine folks at Scholastic, who WRITE THE TEXTBOOKS have a great web page for idiots like Rottweiler and UncensoredDumbFuck2000 to read-up on and educate themselves.

The Supreme Court and Constitutional Interpretation | Scholastic.com

The Supreme Court and Constitutional Interpretation
Grades: Grades 3–5, Grades 6–8

"Equal Justice Under Law . . ."

These words, written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building, express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court is "distinctly American in concept and function," as Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes observed. Few other courts in the world have the same authority of constitutional interpretation and none have exercised it for as long or with as much influence. A century and a half ago, the French political observer Alexis de Tocqueville noted the unique position of the Supreme Court in the history of nations and of jurisprudence. "The representative system of government has been adopted in several states of Europe," he remarked, "but I am unaware that any nation of the globe has hitherto organized a judicial power in the same manner as the Americans . . . A more imposing judicial power was never constituted by any people."

The unique position of the Supreme Court stems, in large part, from the deep commitment of the American people to the Rule of Law and to constitutional government. The United States has demonstrated an unprecedented determination to preserve and protect its written Constitution, thereby providing the American "experiment in democracy" with the oldest written Constitution still in force.

The Constitution of the United States is a carefully-balanced document. It is designed to provide for a national government sufficiently strong and flexible to meet the needs of the republic, yet sufficiently limited and just to protect guaranteed rights of citizens; it permits a balance between society's need for order and the individual's right to freedom. To assure these ends, the Framers of the Constitution created three independent and coequal branches of government. That this Constitution has provided continuous democratic government through the periodic stresses of more than two centuries illustrates the genius of the American system of government.

The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court's considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of "judicial review" has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a "living Constitution" whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations.

While the function of judicial review is not explicitly provided in the Constitution, it had been anticipated before the adoption of that document. Prior to 1789, state courts had already overturned legislative acts which conflicted with state constitutions. Moreover, many of the Founding Fathers expected the Supreme Court to assume this role in regard to the Constitution; Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, for example, had underlined the importance of judicial review in the Federalist Papers, which urged adoption of the Constitution.

Hamilton had written that through the practice of judicial review the Court ensured that the will of the whole people, as expressed in their Constitution, would be supreme over the will of a legislature, whose statutes might express only the temporary will of part of the people. And Madison had written that constitutional interpretation must be left to the reasoned judgment of independent judges, rather than to the tumult and conflict of the political process. If every constitutional question were to be decided by public political bargaining, Madison argued, the Constitution would be reduced to a battleground of competing factions, political passion and partisan spirit.

Despite this background the Court's power of judicial review was not confirmed until 1803, when it was invoked by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison. In this decision, the Chief Justice asserted that the Supreme Court's responsibility to overturn unconstitutional legislation was a necessary consequence of its sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. That oath could not be fulfilled any other way. "It is emphatically the province of the judicial department to say what the law is," he declared.

In retrospect, it is evident that constitutional interpretation and application were made necessary by the very nature of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers had wisely worded that document in rather general terms, leaving it open to future elaboration to meet changing conditions. As Chief Justice Marshall noted in McCulloch v. Maryland, a constitution that attempted to detail every aspect of its own application "would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind ... Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves."

The Constitution limits the Court to dealing with "Cases" and "Controversies." John Jay, the first Chief Justice, clarified this restraint early in the Court's history by declining to advise President George Washington on the constitutional implications of a proposed foreign policy decision. The Court does not give advisory opinions; rather, its function is limited only to deciding specific cases.

The Justices must exercise considerable discretion in deciding which cases to hear, since more than 6,500 civil and criminal cases are filed in the Supreme Court each year from the various state and federal courts. The Supreme Court also has "original jurisdiction" in a very small number of cases arising out of disputes between States or between a State and the Federal Government.

When the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional issue, that judgment is virtually final; its decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court. However, when the Court interprets a statute, new legislative action can be taken.

Chief Justice Marshall expressed the challenge which the Supreme Court faces in maintaining free government by noting: "We must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding . . . intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.

Adapted from The Supreme Court of the United States, courtesy of The Supreme Court Historical Society.

 

[Mr.Nick]

It's funny how everyone believes the president is the most powerful individual in the US...

In reality it's 9 dickheads known as the Supreme Court....

1. SCOTUS (judicial)
2. Congress (legislative)
3. President (executive)

^ That is how the power structure works.

Fuck the SCOTUS - we have a Tenth Amendment for a reason.

 

[P@triot]

Wow. There is so much stupid FLOWING from the fingers of Rottweiler and Uncensored in this thread. It's awesome.

Listen, Rottweiler, I'm not going to engage in any more "Debate" with you because you clearly lack the very fundamental and rudimentary knowledge of Constitutional law and practice in order to really speak from any place of intelligence. I mean that. You are completely ignorant (loudly so) to the concepts we're all taught before we have pubic hair. Your problem is that you THINK your opinion on how it SHOULD work is fact. But it's not.

You've been told time and time and time again that you're wrong about this issue, and even by other Conservatives on this board. Of course the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. In order to evaluate the Constitutionality of laws, they must compare those laws to the Constitution. In other words, they are interpreting the Constitution's intent to that of the law in question.

The fact that you'd deny this shows that you actually don't know what one of the Supreme Court's most important roles really means. The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, and has been doing so forever. That's their main charge actually, dumbfuck, is to interpret the laws of the land by way of the Constitution. All your blustering, all your bold text, all your really weak attempts to "own" me? They fall short because you don't have the platform of knowledge that a fifth grader would have on this topic. Therefore, you're not really worth my time anymore.

(Editor's Note: If you need to declare that you "owned" someone...you didn't.)

Here, I'll answer my own question about Conservative Activism in the High Court:

Bush V. Gore 2000 - Stopped a lawful recount and declared a winner in an election.

Citizens United vs. The Federal Election Commission 2010 - Ruled that no law can limit corporate campaign contributions. No matter what UncensoredDummy says, this is a case where the First Amendment is a corner stone because the SCOTUS ruled based on the assumption that money equals speech, hence WHY corporate (and union) donations cannot be limited. Uncensored doesn't get this, because he understands nuance about as well as he hunderstands thermonuclear dynamics. But it's still true.

Dredd Scott Vs. Sanford 1857 - Ruled that slaves have no Constitutional rights.

Plessy Vs. Ferguson 1897 - Upheld separate but equal laws

You're not going to engage in any more debate because I've backed you into a corner with your own stupidity!

If the Supreme Court has full say over the Constitution, and they decide that all liberals are a danger to this nation (which, lets face it, they really are) and should be immediately executed, you'll respect that decision and won't hide behind any rights in the Constitution?

Son, you're a stupid stoned liberal, and you've been thoroughly owned in this argument. You're dumb enough to claim that private charity is "a failure because we still have hungry and homeless people". But the fact that we "still have homeless and hungry people" means, by your own standard, that government "filling the gaps" (as you ignorantly say) is a spectacular failure. The difference is, if private charity "fails", it hurts no one. When the US government fails, it collapses and we all suffer. Do you see how stupid you are now?

See, everyting you say, I just point out how it contradicts your own (ignorant) opinions, and then your get your panties in a bunch and have a hissy. You can't debate me son - you're a stoner and a high school drop out. I'm educated, and more importantly, I have the facts.

I'll state it one more time since you clearly have two issues working against you - your slow by birth and you're stoned through bad choice - the Supreme Court did not interpret the Constitution the other day, nor did they rule on it. They interpreted SB1070 and ruled on SB1070 on whether or not it is legal under the Constitution (which is written in black & white stupid, and not up for "interpretation"). By your own ignorant opinions, we could go around committing murder of liberals, because the murder laws are "living documents" that are open for "interpretation" . God Almighty you are the most ignorant stoned jack-ass in America!

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Wow. There is so much stupid FLOWING from the fingers of Rottweiler and Uncensored in this thread. It's awesome.

Listen, Rottweiler, I'm not going to engage in any more "Debate" with you because you clearly lack the very fundamental and rudimentary knowledge of Constitutional law and practice in order to really speak from any place of intelligence. I mean that. You are completely ignorant (loudly so) to the concepts we're all taught before we have pubic hair. Your problem is that you THINK your opinion on how it SHOULD work is fact. But it's not.

You've been told time and time and time again that you're wrong about this issue, and even by other Conservatives on this board. Of course the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. In order to evaluate the Constitutionality of laws, they must compare those laws to the Constitution. In other words, they are interpreting the Constitution's intent to that of the law in question.

The fact that you'd deny this shows that you actually don't know what one of the Supreme Court's most important roles really means. The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, and has been doing so forever. That's their main charge actually, dumbfuck, is to interpret the laws of the land by way of the Constitution. All your blustering, all your bold text, all your really weak attempts to "own" me? They fall short because you don't have the platform of knowledge that a fifth grader would have on this topic. Therefore, you're not really worth my time anymore.

(Editor's Note: If you need to declare that you "owned" someone...you didn't.)

Here, I'll answer my own question about Conservative Activism in the High Court:

Bush V. Gore 2000 - Stopped a lawful recount and declared a winner in an election.

Citizens United vs. The Federal Election Commission 2010 - Ruled that no law can limit corporate campaign contributions. No matter what UncensoredDummy says, this is a case where the First Amendment is a corner stone because the SCOTUS ruled based on the assumption that money equals speech, hence WHY corporate (and union) donations cannot be limited. Uncensored doesn't get this, because he understands nuance about as well as he hunderstands thermonuclear dynamics. But it's still true.

Dredd Scott Vs. Sanford 1857 - Ruled that slaves have no Constitutional rights.

Plessy Vs. Ferguson 1897 - Upheld separate but equal laws

You're not going to engage in any more debate because I've backed you into a corner with your own stupidity!

If the Supreme Court has full say over the Constitution, and they decide that all liberals are a danger to this nation (which, lets face it, they really are) and should be immediately executed, you'll respect that decision and won't hide behind any rights in the Constitution?

Son, you're a stupid stoned liberal, and you've been thoroughly owned in this argument. You're dumb enough to claim that private charity is "a failure because we still have hungry and homeless people". But the fact that we "still have homeless and hungry people" means, by your own standard, that government "filling the gaps" (as you ignorantly say) is a spectacular failure. The difference is, if private charity "fails", it hurts no one. When the US government fails, it collapses and we all suffer. Do you see how stupid you are now?

See, everyting you say, I just point out how it contradicts your own (ignorant) opinions, and then your get your panties in a bunch and have a hissy. You can't debate me son - you're a stoner and a high school drop out. I'm educated, and more importantly, I have the facts.

I'll state it one more time since you clearly have two issues working against you - your slow by birth and you're stoned through bad choice - the Supreme Court did not interpret the Constitution the other day, nor did they rule on it. They interpreted SB1070 and ruled on SB1070 on whether or not it is legal under the Constitution (which is written in black & white stupid, and not up for "interpretation"). By your own ignorant opinions, we could go around committing murder of liberals, because the murder laws are "living documents" that are open for "interpretation" . God Almighty you are the most ignorant stoned jack-ass in America!

 

[P@triot]

Wow. There is so much stupid FLOWING from the fingers of Rottweiler and Uncensored in this thread. It's awesome.

Listen, Rottweiler, I'm not going to engage in any more "Debate" with you because you clearly lack the very fundamental and rudimentary knowledge of Constitutional law and practice in order to really speak from any place of intelligence. I mean that. You are completely ignorant (loudly so) to the concepts we're all taught before we have pubic hair. Your problem is that you THINK your opinion on how it SHOULD work is fact. But it's not.

You've been told time and time and time again that you're wrong about this issue, and even by other Conservatives on this board. Of course the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. In order to evaluate the Constitutionality of laws, they must compare those laws to the Constitution. In other words, they are interpreting the Constitution's intent to that of the law in question.

The fact that you'd deny this shows that you actually don't know what one of the Supreme Court's most important roles really means. The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, and has been doing so forever. That's their main charge actually, dumbfuck, is to interpret the laws of the land by way of the Constitution. All your blustering, all your bold text, all your really weak attempts to "own" me? They fall short because you don't have the platform of knowledge that a fifth grader would have on this topic. Therefore, you're not really worth my time anymore.

(Editor's Note: If you need to declare that you "owned" someone...you didn't.)

Here, I'll answer my own question about Conservative Activism in the High Court:

Bush V. Gore 2000 - Stopped a lawful recount and declared a winner in an election.

Citizens United vs. The Federal Election Commission 2010 - Ruled that no law can limit corporate campaign contributions. No matter what UncensoredDummy says, this is a case where the First Amendment is a corner stone because the SCOTUS ruled based on the assumption that money equals speech, hence WHY corporate (and union) donations cannot be limited. Uncensored doesn't get this, because he understands nuance about as well as he hunderstands thermonuclear dynamics. But it's still true.

Dredd Scott Vs. Sanford 1857 - Ruled that slaves have no Constitutional rights.

Plessy Vs. Ferguson 1897 - Upheld separate but equal laws

You're not going to engage in any more debate because I've backed you into a corner with your own stupidity!

If the Supreme Court has full say over the Constitution, and they decide that all liberals are a danger to this nation (which, lets face it, they really are) and should be immediately executed, you'll respect that decision and won't hide behind any rights in the Constitution?

Son, you're a stupid stoned liberal, and you've been thoroughly owned in this argument. You're dumb enough to claim that private charity is "a failure because we still have hungry and homeless people". But the fact that we "still have homeless and hungry people" means, by your own standard, that government "filling the gaps" (as you ignorantly say) is a spectacular failure. The difference is, if private charity "fails", it hurts no one. When the US government fails, it collapses and we all suffer. Do you see how stupid you are now?

See, everyting you say, I just point out how it contradicts your own (ignorant) opinions, and then your get your panties in a bunch and have a hissy. You can't debate me son - you're a stoner and a high school drop out. I'm educated, and more importantly, I have the facts.

I'll state it one more time since you clearly have two issues working against you - your slow by birth and you're stoned through bad choice - the Supreme Court did not interpret the Constitution the other day, nor did they rule on it. They interpreted SB1070 and ruled on SB1070 on whether or not it is legal under the Constitution (which is written in black & white stupid, and not up for "interpretation"). By your own ignorant opinions, we could go around committing murder of liberals, because the murder laws are "living documents" that are open for "interpretation" . God Almighty you are the most ignorant stoned jack-ass in America!

You're nervous laughter isn't distracting anyone from the fact that I've exposed your ignorance and your contradictions. Case in point:

Son, you're a stupid stoned liberal, and you've been thoroughly owned in this argument. You're dumb enough to claim that private charity is "a failure because we still have hungry and homeless people". But the fact that we "still have homeless and hungry people" means, by your own standard, that government "filling the gaps" (as you ignorantly say) is a spectacular failure. The difference is, if private charity "fails", it hurts no one. When the US government fails, it collapses and we all suffer. Do you see how stupid you are now?

You can't respond to this because you contradict yourself, so now you're left to just post "LOL". You're only embarassing yourself.

 

[P@triot]

which requires constitutional interpretation...

no matter how large you make your type.

thanks for your 'expertise'.

But lets dumb this down for you liberals here. According to you, the US Constitution is "living" lol: - seriously, that never stops being hilarious) and at the mercy of the "interpretation" of the US Supreme Court, right?

So that means, if tomorrow the Supreme Court "interprets" that all liberals are a threat to national security, and should be executed, and that black people must be enslaved again for the good of the economy, you would 100% support that right? You wouldn't argue or feel that either of those are the slightest bit "unconstitutional"?

Yes or No - answer the question "counselor"...

Everyone here notice how the brilliant "attorney" Jillian won't answer the question (and in fact, won't even post now other than to give libtard Conservaderp thumbs up).

All you have to do with these libtards is just take their emotional, irrational, misinformed words and feed it right back to them. Then they are left with no answer and it's Game. Set. Match.

Only the idiot liberal would actually try to make the case that their own rights are not set in stone and that they can and should be taken away from them on the whim of another human being . Is it any wonder these people can't function in life and generally end up living off of the government? They are so self-destructive, they even try to argue away their own rights

 

[ConservaDerrps]

You're not going to engage in any more debate because I've backed you into a corner with your own stupidity!

If the Supreme Court has full say over the Constitution, and they decide that all liberals are a danger to this nation (which, lets face it, they really are) and should be immediately executed, you'll respect that decision and won't hide behind any rights in the Constitution?

Son, you're a stupid stoned liberal, and you've been thoroughly owned in this argument. You're dumb enough to claim that private charity is "a failure because we still have hungry and homeless people". But the fact that we "still have homeless and hungry people" means, by your own standard, that government "filling the gaps" (as you ignorantly say) is a spectacular failure. The difference is, if private charity "fails", it hurts no one. When the US government fails, it collapses and we all suffer. Do you see how stupid you are now?

See, everyting you say, I just point out how it contradicts your own (ignorant) opinions, and then your get your panties in a bunch and have a hissy. You can't debate me son - you're a stoner and a high school drop out. I'm educated, and more importantly, I have the facts.

I'll state it one more time since you clearly have two issues working against you - your slow by birth and you're stoned through bad choice - the Supreme Court did not interpret the Constitution the other day, nor did they rule on it. They interpreted SB1070 and ruled on SB1070 on whether or not it is legal under the Constitution (which is written in black & white stupid, and not up for "interpretation"). By your own ignorant opinions, we could go around committing murder of liberals, because the murder laws are "living documents" that are open for "interpretation" . God Almighty you are the most ignorant stoned jack-ass in America!

You're nervous laughter isn't distracting anyone from the fact that I've exposed your ignorance and your contradictions. Case in point:

Son, you're a stupid stoned liberal, and you've been thoroughly owned in this argument. You're dumb enough to claim that private charity is "a failure because we still have hungry and homeless people". But the fact that we "still have homeless and hungry people" means, by your own standard, that government "filling the gaps" (as you ignorantly say) is a spectacular failure. The difference is, if private charity "fails", it hurts no one. When the US government fails, it collapses and we all suffer. Do you see how stupid you are now?

You can't respond to this because you contradict yourself, so now you're left to just post "LOL". You're only embarassing yourself.

 

[P@triot]

You're nervous laughter isn't distracting anyone from the fact that I've exposed your ignorance and your contradictions. Case in point:

Son, you're a stupid stoned liberal, and you've been thoroughly owned in this argument. You're dumb enough to claim that private charity is "a failure because we still have hungry and homeless people". But the fact that we "still have homeless and hungry people" means, by your own standard, that government "filling the gaps" (as you ignorantly say) is a spectacular failure. The difference is, if private charity "fails", it hurts no one. When the US government fails, it collapses and we all suffer. Do you see how stupid you are now?

You can't respond to this because you contradict yourself, so now you're left to just post "LOL". You're only embarassing yourself.

Son, you're a stupid stoned liberal, and you've been thoroughly owned in this argument. You're dumb enough to claim that private charity is "a failure because we still have hungry and homeless people". But the fact that we "still have homeless and hungry people" means, by your own standard, that government "filling the gaps" (as you ignorantly say) is a spectacular failure. The difference is, if private charity "fails", it hurts no one. When the US government fails, it collapses and we all suffer. Do you see how stupid you are now?

Nervous laughter still not hiding your ignorance or your failure!

 

[ConservaDerrps]

You're nervous laughter isn't distracting anyone from the fact that I've exposed your ignorance and your contradictions. Case in point:

Son, you're a stupid stoned liberal, and you've been thoroughly owned in this argument. You're dumb enough to claim that private charity is "a failure because we still have hungry and homeless people". But the fact that we "still have homeless and hungry people" means, by your own standard, that government "filling the gaps" (as you ignorantly say) is a spectacular failure. The difference is, if private charity "fails", it hurts no one. When the US government fails, it collapses and we all suffer. Do you see how stupid you are now?

You can't respond to this because you contradict yourself, so now you're left to just post "LOL". You're only embarassing yourself.

Son, you're a stupid stoned liberal, and you've been thoroughly owned in this argument. You're dumb enough to claim that private charity is "a failure because we still have hungry and homeless people". But the fact that we "still have homeless and hungry people" means, by your own standard, that government "filling the gaps" (as you ignorantly say) is a spectacular failure. The difference is, if private charity "fails", it hurts no one. When the US government fails, it collapses and we all suffer. Do you see how stupid you are now?

Nervous laughter still not hiding your ignorance or your failure!

 

[Billo_Really]

Only the idiot liberal would actually try to make the case that their own rights are not set in stone and that they can and should be taken away from them on the whim of another human being . Is it any wonder these people can't function in life and generally end up living off of the government? They are so self-destructive, they even try to argue away their own rights

Only an idiot would broadstroke an entire group of people and act like that was really the case.

I'm a liberal and I don't want any of my rights taken away for any reason. I've also worked my entire life and have not taken a penny from the government. So let's just say, your statement isn't as accurate as you would like it to be.

BTW, we no longer have Constitutional rights.

 

[Billo_Really]

It's funny how everyone believes the president is the most powerful individual in the US...

In reality it's 9 dickheads known as the Supreme Court....

1. SCOTUS (judicial)
2. Congress (legislative)
3. President (executive)

^ That is how the power structure works.

Fuck the SCOTUS - we have a Tenth Amendment for a reason.

That all changed with "Executive Directive 51", which basically makes the President a dictator.

The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive (National Security Presidential Directive NSPD 51/Homeland Security Presidential Directive HSPD-20, sometimes called simply "Executive Directive 51" for short), created and signed by United States President George W. Bush on May 4, 2007, is a Presidential Directive which claims power to execute procedures for continuity of the federal government in the event of a "catastrophic emergency". Such an emergency is construed as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions."