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.
Yeah...let's completely ignore contributions to our Constitution from Europe.I'm talking about the supreme court rulings. You have to wonder if they've ever read the ConstitutionYeah, throw the bums out for not being the elected officials they were never intended to be. And, man oh man, if one of them performs his Constitutional duties by deciding what is Constitutional and what is not then let's string 'em up because someone in a trailor park sees it differently.
If they did their Constitutional duties and enforced the Constitution, then there wouldn't be a problem. The problem is they don't limit the other branches to doing only Constitutional things, which is their duty and they legislate, which isn't their duty
First off, the Supreme Court doesn't just say "Hey, we need to look at that law you guys jjust passed!", it has to bubble up to them through the courts.
Secondly, there are many interpretations about what is Constitutional and what is not. That is why you have a Supreme Court molded by the elected offices of the Executive and Legislative branches and a step away from on-demand democracy where opinions are more volatile. It's a pretty good system, not perfect, there is no such thing.
Anyway, I wish you guys luck in nothing coming of this.
You mean like when they cite foreign laws. Yeah, it's a gas, or it would be if it didn't fuck us so badly
I'm good, thank you. I don't cry over what I know is Constitutional.I understand there are still con-federate flag crying towels available for you.Whoa, I hit a nerve. Calm down, Chickie
If you really knew how the courts worked (which you don't) you would know that the Court can't do ANYTHING unless a case is brought before them.
I said nothing contrary to that. When you address the voices in your head, can you let people know that?
So...this is what you do (if you don't want to just keep whining)...bring a case accusing elected officials of not being what they were intended to be. Make sure you've got a good case now and keep us posted.
Sorry , couldn't understand through the tears and sobs, what's that again? Try calming down first
I'll pass on another rag after you finish crying in it. They always are not only soaking wet but smell funny
Yeah...let's completely ignore contributions to our Constitution from Europe.I'm talking about the supreme court rulings. You have to wonder if they've ever read the ConstitutionIf they did their Constitutional duties and enforced the Constitution, then there wouldn't be a problem. The problem is they don't limit the other branches to doing only Constitutional things, which is their duty and they legislate, which isn't their duty
First off, the Supreme Court doesn't just say "Hey, we need to look at that law you guys jjust passed!", it has to bubble up to them through the courts.
Secondly, there are many interpretations about what is Constitutional and what is not. That is why you have a Supreme Court molded by the elected offices of the Executive and Legislative branches and a step away from on-demand democracy where opinions are more volatile. It's a pretty good system, not perfect, there is no such thing.
Anyway, I wish you guys luck in nothing coming of this.
You mean like when they cite foreign laws. Yeah, it's a gas, or it would be if it didn't fuck us so badly
I'm good, thank you. I don't cry over what I know is Constitutional.I understand there are still con-federate flag crying towels available for you.Whoa, I hit a nerve. Calm down, Chickie
If you really knew how the courts worked (which you don't) you would know that the Court can't do ANYTHING unless a case is brought before them.
I said nothing contrary to that. When you address the voices in your head, can you let people know that?
So...this is what you do (if you don't want to just keep whining)...bring a case accusing elected officials of not being what they were intended to be. Make sure you've got a good case now and keep us posted.
Sorry , couldn't understand through the tears and sobs, what's that again? Try calming down first
I'll pass on another rag after you finish crying in it. They always are not only soaking wet but smell funny
Nuder. Is that like.....more nude?
You idiot.
That's why you're the lone laugher. You don't get what everyone else has been laughing about until page 4.
Does your face light up when all off a sudden you sit up and say, OMG, I get it now?
Nuder. Is that like.....more nude?
You idiot.
That's why you're the lone laugher. You don't get what everyone else has been laughing about until page 4.
Does your face light up when all off a sudden you sit up and say, OMG, I get it now?
You think I read any "off" this shit? Silly nutter.
But you will tolerate your president sending fbi agents marching into Burns Oregon to kill people because he doesn't like the way the people use their own land...I was kind of thinking of a way we can neutralize court decisions that we don't like. A state could simply refuse but the problem with that is that those that refuse could be thrown in jail. The solution would be for the executive branch to simply pardon any official who is charged with contempt of court in those cases thus rendering the courts ability to enforce its decrees powerless. This could be done on a host of issues such as Roe V. Wade or Obamacare bullshit.
Over my dead body will I ever tolerate the President sending FBI agents marching into the Supreme Court and performing strip searches just because the President doesn't like the way a court case went down.
Kaz posts the const limits gummit power (actually it doesn't - the bill or rights does that)
As I said, Congress or the Executive branch could deal, but they won't, because they're traitors.You don't get to decide who gets kicked out of the Supreme Court. The Legislature gets to decide that and you get to vote for them. Your use of the word "We" is being used quite liberally. I doubt many Americans share the opinion of the OP. You guys are just a bunch of whiny bitches when things don't go your way. That's how our Republic works.
Just like you are.
Oh, I see. Good luck with your revolution. We'll be right behind you...chuckling.
No, you really won't.
Too late.
You won't be laughing in...hmmm...about a year. I promise you.
As I said, Congress or the Executive branch could deal, but they won't, because they're traitors.You don't get to decide who gets kicked out of the Supreme Court. The Legislature gets to decide that and you get to vote for them. Your use of the word "We" is being used quite liberally. I doubt many Americans share the opinion of the OP. You guys are just a bunch of whiny bitches when things don't go your way. That's how our Republic works.
Just like you are.
Oh, I see. Good luck with your revolution. We'll be right behind you...chuckling.
No, you really won't.
Too late.
You won't be laughing in...hmmm...about a year. I promise you.
But you will tolerate your president sending fbi agents marching into Burns Oregon to kill people because he doesn't like the way the people use their own land...I was kind of thinking of a way we can neutralize court decisions that we don't like. A state could simply refuse but the problem with that is that those that refuse could be thrown in jail. The solution would be for the executive branch to simply pardon any official who is charged with contempt of court in those cases thus rendering the courts ability to enforce its decrees powerless. This could be done on a host of issues such as Roe V. Wade or Obamacare bullshit.
Over my dead body will I ever tolerate the President sending FBI agents marching into the Supreme Court and performing strip searches just because the President doesn't like the way a court case went down.
Yes. they took over a government building on public lands. They broke the law.
Public lands are owned by the people. A corrupt judge and a corrupt law enforcement official (also appointed) colluded to establish an unconstitutional military presence, and to imprison people who absolutely should not be in prison..and who are in prison for PROTESTING unconstitutional actions of the feds.
The feds do not have the right to point guns at people over land use. Fuck the feds, it's just a matter of time before people start taking them out. I expect it will start in Grant County.
But you will tolerate your president sending fbi agents marching into Burns Oregon to kill people because he doesn't like the way the people use their own land...I was kind of thinking of a way we can neutralize court decisions that we don't like. A state could simply refuse but the problem with that is that those that refuse could be thrown in jail. The solution would be for the executive branch to simply pardon any official who is charged with contempt of court in those cases thus rendering the courts ability to enforce its decrees powerless. This could be done on a host of issues such as Roe V. Wade or Obamacare bullshit.
Over my dead body will I ever tolerate the President sending FBI agents marching into the Supreme Court and performing strip searches just because the President doesn't like the way a court case went down.
Yes. they took over a government building on public lands. They broke the law.
Public lands are owned by the people. A corrupt judge and a corrupt law enforcement official (also appointed) colluded to establish an unconstitutional military presence, and to imprison people who absolutely should not be in prison..and who are in prison for PROTESTING unconstitutional actions of the feds.
The feds do not have the right to point guns at people over land use. Fuck the feds, it's just a matter of time before people start taking them out. I expect it will start in Grant County.
Yes , indeed.
You are 1000% correct.
But unfortunately many socialists, fascists and victims of government education believe that fedgov's authority is without limit and can not be questioned.
The San Antonio jury found the Davidians NOT GUILTY for wiping out the 4 BATF motherfuckers.
.
Nuder. Is that like.....more nude?
You idiot.
That's why you're the lone laugher. You don't get what everyone else has been laughing about until page 4.
Does your face light up when all off a sudden you sit up and say, OMG, I get it now?
You think I read any "off" this shit? Silly nutter.
I normally mock spell checkers. But in your case, it's the most content you provide, so I'm good with it
That would be what SCOTUS does to the Constitution.No, that would be "neuter".I think it's kind of like castrate.What the heck is "nuder"?I was kind of thinking of a way we can neutralize court decisions that we don't like. A state could simply refuse but the problem with that is that those that refuse could be thrown in jail. The solution would be for the executive branch to simply pardon any official who is charged with contempt of court in those cases thus rendering the courts ability to enforce its decrees powerless. This could be done on a host of issues such as Roe V. Wade or Obamacare bullshit.
As serious as warranted. Before editing, the quoted post read : I was kind of thinking of a way we can nuder court decisions....I think it's kind of like castrate.What the heck is "nuder"?I was kind of thinking of a way we can neutralize court decisions that we don't like. A state could simply refuse but the problem with that is that those that refuse could be thrown in jail. The solution would be for the executive branch to simply pardon any official who is charged with contempt of court in those cases thus rendering the courts ability to enforce its decrees powerless. This could be done on a host of issues such as Roe V. Wade or Obamacare bullshit.
Is that a serious answer?
What the heck is "nuder"?I was kind of thinking of a way we can neutralize court decisions that we don't like. A state could simply refuse but the problem with that is that those that refuse could be thrown in jail. The solution would be for the executive branch to simply pardon any official who is charged with contempt of court in those cases thus rendering the courts ability to enforce its decrees powerless. This could be done on a host of issues such as Roe V. Wade or Obamacare bullshit.
the last dancer wore a G string and pasties. The second dancer only wore a G String, making her nuder than the first.
The court's job is to decide cases. It's not to make law. That's the job of the legislative branch.They're non-elected, appointed asshats. They are dispensible, they can and should be replaced when they fuck with the constitution.Yeah, fuck the judicial branch, what have they ever done for us?
Yeah, throw the bums out for not being the elected officials they were never intended to be. And, man oh man, if one of them performs his Constitutional duties by deciding what is Constitutional and what is not then let's string 'em up because someone in a trailor park sees it differently.
In addition to working on their spelling, some folks here need to brush up on Civics.
Like? Nuder is a correctly spelled word. It just wasn't used in the right context. I honestly didn't know how to spell n****** as in spade and **** your pet. I also didn't care either.
By the way- FDR really, really wanted to 'nuder' neuter the Supreme Court- which is why he floated the idea of packing it.
The Supreme Court turned down many of the programs the Conservatives opposed.
And of course- no talk then of 'courts over stepping.
