Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Not a fan of the constitution, are you?Harry Reid did this so that they can get activist Judges in the D. C. court.
The counter by Repubs should be, if they get the Senate in 2014 and keep the House, is to write legislation that would bring up Judges to a review board when they make their own laws like they are doing now and then can get fired for doing that.
The problem with this is President Obama would veto it.
So they would have to do this when they would get a Repub President maybe in 2016.
I am very much so a fan of the constitution.
The Constitution is for 3 branches of government that are separate and Judges making their own law is unconstitutional, the congress is suppose to do that.
Judges are suppose to Judge on laws passed by congress. Not make their own laws.
you argued over mandate law where you were told
Not a fan of the constitution, are you?
I am very much so a fan of the constitution.
The Constitution is for 3 branches of government that are separate and Judges making their own law is unconstitutional, the congress is suppose to do that.
Judges are suppose to Judge on laws passed by congress. Not make their own laws.
Since you won't name the "activist judges" whose nominations are being held up (like that woman who served under Bush II), can you name the laws they are "making"?
Harry Reid did this so that they can get activist Judges in the D. C. court.
The counter by Repubs should be, if they get the Senate in 2014 and keep the House, is to write legislation that would bring up Judges to a review board when they make their own laws like they are doing now and then can get fired for doing that.
The problem with this is President Obama would veto it.
So they would have to do this when they would get a Repub President maybe in 2016.
So name them. Which "activist judges" have been being held up?
Not a fan of the constitution, are you?
I am very much so a fan of the constitution.
The Constitution is for 3 branches of government that are separate and Judges making their own law is unconstitutional, the congress is suppose to do that.
Judges are suppose to Judge on laws passed by congress. Not make their own laws.
sucks to be you ... you know nothing about the law or the constitution
Not a fan of the constitution, are you?
I am very much so a fan of the constitution.
The Constitution is for 3 branches of government that are separate and Judges making their own law is unconstitutional, the congress is suppose to do that.
Judges are suppose to Judge on laws passed by congress. Not make their own laws.
Since you won't name the "activist judges" whose nominations are being held up (like that woman who served under Bush II), can you name the laws they are "making"?
I am very much so a fan of the constitution.
The Constitution is for 3 branches of government that are separate and Judges making their own law is unconstitutional, the congress is suppose to do that.
Judges are suppose to Judge on laws passed by congress. Not make their own laws.
Since you won't name the "activist judges" whose nominations are being held up (like that woman who served under Bush II), can you name the laws they are "making"?
crickets chirping frogs croaking creeks babbling and so is peach ...
I am very much so a fan of the constitution.
The Constitution is for 3 branches of government that are separate and Judges making their own law is unconstitutional, the congress is suppose to do that.
Judges are suppose to Judge on laws passed by congress. Not make their own laws.
sucks to be you ... you know nothing about the law or the constitution
you argued over mandate law where you were told
The mandate has something called the "shared responsibility payment" which Congress labelled a penalty.
The two arguments proposed by the Government were ruled valid or invalid. Neither of those two were a "mandate" argument. you chose to deny this becausue it would show you didn't know law ...
there thats much better now>>>
Your answer proves that you don't know the law or the constitution.
Not a fan of the constitution, are you?
I am very much so a fan of the constitution.
The Constitution is for 3 branches of government that are separate and Judges making their own law is unconstitutional, the congress is suppose to do that.
Judges are suppose to Judge on laws passed by congress. Not make their own laws.
sucks to be you ... you know nothing about the law or the constitution
The mandate has something called the "shared responsibility payment" which Congress labelled a penalty.
The two arguments proposed by the Government were ruled valid or invalid. Neither of those two were a "mandate" argument. you chose to deny this becausue it would show you didn't know law ...
Harry Reid did this so that they can get activist Judges in the D. C. court.
The counter by Repubs should be, if they get the Senate in 2014 and keep the House, is to write legislation that would bring up Judges to a review board when they make their own laws like they are doing now and then can get fired for doing that.
The problem with this is President Obama would veto it.
So they would have to do this when they would get a Repub President maybe in 2016.
Harry Reid did this so that they can get activist Judges in the D. C. court.
The counter by Repubs should be, if they get the Senate in 2014 and keep the House, is to write legislation that would bring up Judges to a review board when they make their own laws like they are doing now and then can get fired for doing that.
The problem with this is President Obama would veto it.
So they would have to do this when they would get a Repub President maybe in 2016.
So name them. Which "activist judges" have been being held up?
Comelia Pillard
Patricia Millett
Robert Wilkins
Since you won't name the "activist judges" whose nominations are being held up (like that woman who served under Bush II), can you name the laws they are "making"?
crickets chirping frogs croaking creeks babbling and so is peach ...
see post #1243 ya flaming idiot.
thats priceless 
I am very much so a fan of the constitution.
The Constitution is for 3 branches of government that are separate and Judges making their own law is unconstitutional, the congress is suppose to do that.
Judges are suppose to Judge on laws passed by congress. Not make their own laws.
Since you won't name the "activist judges" whose nominations are being held up (like that woman who served under Bush II), can you name the laws they are "making"?
wytchey, I don't think you are really that dumb. Activist judges set precedents with their rulings, effectively making law from the bench. But you knew that, why not be truthful?
I am very much so a fan of the constitution.
The Constitution is for 3 branches of government that are separate and Judges making their own law is unconstitutional, the congress is suppose to do that.
Judges are suppose to Judge on laws passed by congress. Not make their own laws.
sucks to be you ... you know nothing about the law or the constitution
The mandate has something called the "shared responsibility payment" which Congress labelled a penalty.
The two arguments proposed by the Government were ruled valid or invalid. Neither of those two were a "mandate" argument. you chose to deny this becausue it would show you didn't know law ...
Where did I argue over the mandate?
Are you talking about the ACA?
Supreme Court has ruled mandates unconstitutional. Judge Roberts changed that mandate passed by congress to a tax in the ACA. That is what activist Judges do.
So name them. Which "activist judges" have been being held up?
Comelia Pillard
Patricia Millett
Robert Wilkins
What makes them "activist"?
Since you won't name the "activist judges" whose nominations are being held up (like that woman who served under Bush II), can you name the laws they are "making"?
wytchey, I don't think you are really that dumb. Activist judges set precedents with their rulings, effectively making law from the bench. But you knew that, why not be truthful?
Name them and name the laws, Fishy. Come on, give me some light reading this morning.
Not a fan of the constitution, are you?Harry Reid did this so that they can get activist Judges in the D. C. court.
The counter by Repubs should be, if they get the Senate in 2014 and keep the House, is to write legislation that would bring up Judges to a review board when they make their own laws like they are doing now and then can get fired for doing that.
The problem with this is President Obama would veto it.
So they would have to do this when they would get a Repub President maybe in 2016.
I am very much so a fan of the constitution.
...
So name them. Which "activist judges" have been being held up?
Comelia Pillard
Patricia Millett
Robert Wilkins
What makes them "activist"?
crickets chirping frogs croaking creeks babbling and so is peach ...
see post #1243 ya flaming idiot.
do you think I have time to look up your bull shit post ??? really!!!!!
Comelia Pillard
Patricia Millett
Robert Wilkins
What makes them "activist"?
They aren't conservative
wytchey, I don't think you are really that dumb. Activist judges set precedents with their rulings, effectively making law from the bench. But you knew that, why not be truthful?
Name them and name the laws, Fishy. Come on, give me some light reading this morning.
almost any ruling coming out of the 9th circuit.
