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.
Rick Santorum wants to invade your bedroom in the middle of sex and arrest you for doing sexual acts he doesn't like.
He believes in upholding the current sodomy laws that imprison people for up to 1 to 15 years for acts such as falatio, anal, and other acts that aren't missionary position. This law extends to straight people and even married couples.
If you're gay, you especially better watch out because simply identifying as "gay" will immediately make you suspect to being indicted for sodomy. This means only gay virgins are safe, but if you're a sexually active gay, you will be enslaved.
.
These are state issues....
If someone wants to ban some odd sexual behavior I don't have a problem with it via the Tenth Amendment..
I will say such a proposal violates the First Amendment.. It certainly violates the equal protection clause within the Fourteenth (which I believe is vague bullshit BTW)..
So I think banning sexual practices is unconstitutional...
Oh and I'm highly opposed to banning sexual practices, however my personal opinions have nothing to do with the legality of an action, or even legislation.
Fine. That's a reasonable position people can debate.
The issue is whether the sovereign states have the power to enact such legislation. I think they do and ought to. The amount of power handed over to the judiciary is staggering and unprecedented. Just ask the people of California.
I never threatened to sue anyone. Especially not Rabbi. I wouldn't waste the filing fee on such a non-adversary. And as for the "internet lawyer" comment - the implication being that I'm not who I say I am...hey, fuckface...I've already called your bluff on that. I've offered to prove it, dickcheese.
Oooh! Scary internet lawyer!Rabbi, you're simply pathological. I'm sure you fancy yourself a keyboard cowboy...but you're laughable at best.
You've yet to disprove that I'm a lawyer. I've already offered to post my AL Bar #. I guess you can't stand to look reality in the face.
I never threatened to sue anyone. Especially not Rabbi. I wouldn't waste the filing fee on such a non-adversary. And as for the "internet lawyer" comment - the implication being that I'm not who I say I am...hey, fuckface...I've already called your bluff on that. I've offered to prove it, dickcheese.
No one said they were. And private employment discrimination isnt the issue; at issue is a given jurisdiction enacting measures to exclude same sex couples from equal access to marriage laws. The issue is the un-Constitutional infringement by the state with regard to ones privacy rights, as stated in Lawrence and Perry.Gays are not a protected class under Federal law.
You've got eyes. Read the thread. It was an open invitation for anyone.
Are you sure you're a lawyer? You're not even smart enough to figure out how the quote function works. Psssst! Click the Quote button.You've got eyes. Read the thread. It was an open invitation for anyone.
No, I mean on message boards. Internet lawyers threatening to sue people who disagree with them.It's funny when they threaten to sue you for disagreeing with them.
You mean like Prop 8...
That shit was messed up. The Tenth Amendment was imposed to decide the issue of civil unions, the voters decided they didn't want civil unions, then the liberal activists sued the state and took the issue to the 9th district and won because the 9th is super liberal...
That shit took tyranny to a new level...
Of course the court ruled prop 8 violated the equal protection clause in the Fourteenth Amendment, but in reality what action doesn't violate the Fourteenth Amendment?????
I could argue pissing in someones face makes me happy, therefore I have a Fourteenth Amendment right to piss in someones face.... The Fourteenth needs an addendum or be completely abolished and rewritten..
In those cases, the word "plaintiff" should be changed to "sissy bedwetter".No, I mean on message boards. Internet lawyers threatening to sue people who disagree with them.You mean like Prop 8...
That shit was messed up. The Tenth Amendment was imposed to decide the issue of civil unions, the voters decided they didn't want civil unions, then the liberal activists sued the state and took the issue to the 9th district and won because the 9th is super liberal...
That shit took tyranny to a new level...
Of course the court ruled prop 8 violated the equal protection clause in the Fourteenth Amendment, but in reality what action doesn't violate the Fourteenth Amendment?????
I could argue pissing in someones face makes me happy, therefore I have a Fourteenth Amendment right to piss in someones face.... The Fourteenth needs an addendum or be completely abolished and rewritten..
Ha...
I love those cases: "you hurt my feelings so I want $5,000 in punitive damages."
or
"You hurt my feelings so I knocked out all the windows in your car..
You left your time with CIA as a covert operative out of your bio.Don't call my bluff? Are you two smoking crack cocaine? I'm the one telling you to bring it on.
Yet you two keep on with the insults.
BTW, it's ASB-1113-F69N
Alfred D. Norris, III
Alfred Alfie Norris | Facebook
Alfred Norris, III
Someone posted that they'd be wary of posting personal info on this board. I've thought it through. I've got nothing to hide.
Do you use that tactic in court?I'm sorry. Did you say something? My foot's so far up your ass that your mouth's not making sounds.
In those cases, the word "plaintiff" should be changed to "sissy bedwetter".No, I mean on message boards. Internet lawyers threatening to sue people who disagree with them.
Ha...
I love those cases: "you hurt my feelings so I want $5,000 in punitive damages."
or
"You hurt my feelings so I knocked out all the windows in your car..
Humanity is doomed.In those cases, the word "plaintiff" should be changed to "sissy bedwetter".Ha...
I love those cases: "you hurt my feelings so I want $5,000 in punitive damages."
or
"You hurt my feelings so I knocked out all the windows in your car..
I fried my motherboard a week back and I've had the "privilege" of watching that shit when I had a day off, some of the explanations for why these people did what they did is batshit....
Some downright admit what they did yet they want the judge to side with them just because....
90% of those idiots that go on those shows actually believe an emotional defense holds some legal water.... Its like: No ma'am you cannot damage that womans vehicle because she stole your boyfriend....
The sad part is that I bet the majority of those that watch that nonsense are emotionally connected to those that even allow their pending litigation er whatever the hell you want to call that arbitration on the show's sob stories.
I don't even believe those judges are active. I don't believe thats even real "legal" arbitration... I think they drop their cases and then an ex-judge arbitrates and the show actually pays the litigants, which is why you never see anyone get arrested for contempt for blowing up and throwing fits.
Humanity is doomed.In those cases, the word "plaintiff" should be changed to "sissy bedwetter".
I fried my motherboard a week back and I've had the "privilege" of watching that shit when I had a day off, some of the explanations for why these people did what they did is batshit....
Some downright admit what they did yet they want the judge to side with them just because....
90% of those idiots that go on those shows actually believe an emotional defense holds some legal water.... Its like: No ma'am you cannot damage that womans vehicle because she stole your boyfriend....
The sad part is that I bet the majority of those that watch that nonsense are emotionally connected to those that even allow their pending litigation er whatever the hell you want to call that arbitration on the show's sob stories.
I don't even believe those judges are active. I don't believe thats even real "legal" arbitration... I think they drop their cases and then an ex-judge arbitrates and the show actually pays the litigants, which is why you never see anyone get arrested for contempt for blowing up and throwing fits.
You don't think at all.Humanity is doomed.I fried my motherboard a week back and I've had the "privilege" of watching that shit when I had a day off, some of the explanations for why these people did what they did is batshit....
Some downright admit what they did yet they want the judge to side with them just because....
90% of those idiots that go on those shows actually believe an emotional defense holds some legal water.... Its like: No ma'am you cannot damage that womans vehicle because she stole your boyfriend....
The sad part is that I bet the majority of those that watch that nonsense are emotionally connected to those that even allow their pending litigation er whatever the hell you want to call that arbitration on the show's sob stories.
I don't even believe those judges are active. I don't believe thats even real "legal" arbitration... I think they drop their cases and then an ex-judge arbitrates and the show actually pays the litigants, which is why you never see anyone get arrested for contempt for blowing up and throwing fits.
I think that every time I see you post your drivel.
