The Judicial branch, the only way to promote the liberal agenda

[JakeStarkey]

Yurt, it is maturity for you to realize that pubs are statists when it comes to their pet projects as well in filing with courts. It's OK, it means you are growing up.

i don't need a flaming liberal to tell me about growing up especially a liberal who NEVER backs up his claims see, i've been balanced about both parties for a couple of years now, you, however, are still in the democrats camp and are not balanced, thus, using your logic, you are not grown up deal with it

The fact is that you are a far right reactionary who has just come to grips many of our Pubs are as sneaky and vicious as you when it comes to issues.

But that you recognize the similarities is good, and hopefully there is a chance for you.

But the far right reactionaries are going to have to leave the Republican Party before it can heal.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Judicial Branch is needed to keep the states under control when they trample on individual rights

Just so.

 

[Yurt]

Yurt, it is maturity for you to realize that pubs are statists when it comes to their pet projects as well in filing with courts. It's OK, it means you are growing up.

i don't need a flaming liberal to tell me about growing up especially a liberal who NEVER backs up his claims see, i've been balanced about both parties for a couple of years now, you, however, are still in the democrats camp and are not balanced, thus, using your logic, you are not grown up deal with it

The fact is that you are a far right reactionary who has just come to grips many of our Pubs are as sneaky and vicious as you when it comes to issues.

But that you recognize the similarities is good, and hopefully there is a chance for you.

But the far right reactionaries are going to have to leave the Republican Party before it can heal.

let's see...jakeythefakey pos reps me and thanks me, then proceeds to admit i am unbiased in calling out both parties.....yet....i'm still a far right reactionary...despite the fact the idiottroll can't cite a single political belief of mine that makes me a far right reactionary

you = loser drama queen

 

[Yurt]

The Judicial Branch is needed to keep the states under control when they trample on individual rights

what about the federal government?

 

[Contumacious]

The Judicial Branch is needed to keep the states under control when they trample on individual rights

Bullshit.

The Judicial Branch is needed to perpetrate the fraud that Americans enjoy judicial review, when in fact they are just another government agency as it was in the old soviet union.

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

A question I keep asking these anti-SCOTUS, anti-judiciary, anti-judicial review typses, that they never answer is,

without the evil 'unelected' SCOTUS, with its 'tyrannical' power of judicial review, how would you propose to keep states and localities from passing gun laws that violated the 2nd amendment?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Judicial Branch is needed to keep the states under control when they trample on individual rights

what about the federal government?

You're asking that less than a month after the Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act?

 

[Contumacious]

A question I keep asking these anti-SCOTUS, anti-judiciary, anti-judicial review typses, that they never answer is,

without the evil 'unelected' SCOTUS, with its 'tyrannical' power of judicial review, how would you propose to keep states and localities from passing gun laws that violated the 2nd amendment?

Rights are unalienable

privileges are subject to the discretion of a bureaucracy or to a 5-4 Scotus majority

...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....

Benito Mussolini


.

 

[jgarden]

As well as taking away the will of the people

For decades conservatives have been trying to impose their will by stacking the Supreme Court with like-minded judges - but when these judges make a decision with which they disagree, they're accused of ignoring "the will of the people."

 

[Contumacious]

As well as taking away the will of the people

For decades conservatives have been trying to impose their will by stacking the Supreme Court with like-minded judges - but when these judges make a decision with which they disagree, they're accused of ignoring "the will of the people."

Their responsibility is to to Apply the Constitution as WRITTEN not as demanded by powerful political factions.

In interpreting the constitution justices are supposed to be "mere machines"

Thomas Jefferson

.

 

[Yurt]

A question I keep asking these anti-SCOTUS, anti-judiciary, anti-judicial review typses, that they never answer is,

without the evil 'unelected' SCOTUS, with its 'tyrannical' power of judicial review, how would you propose to keep states and localities from passing gun laws that violated the 2nd amendment?

Rights are unalienable

privileges are subject to the discretion of a bureaucracy or to a 5-4 Scotus majority

...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....

Benito Mussolini


.

do you mean inalienable?

 

[Yurt]

The Judicial Branch is needed to keep the states under control when they trample on individual rights

what about the federal government?

You're asking that less than a month after the Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act?

yes. rightwinger mentioned only states. i'm curious as to HIS VIEWS on the federal government.

do keep up slowpoke....

 

[Contumacious]

A question I keep asking these anti-SCOTUS, anti-judiciary, anti-judicial review typses, that they never answer is,

without the evil 'unelected' SCOTUS, with its 'tyrannical' power of judicial review, how would you propose to keep states and localities from passing gun laws that violated the 2nd amendment?

Rights are unalienable

privileges are subject to the discretion of a bureaucracy or to a 5-4 Scotus majority

...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....

Benito Mussolini


.

do you mean inalienable?

Thomas Jefferson used the term UNalienable

.

 

[Yurt]

ok...you're right he did...i'm thinking of the modern usuage

 

[NYcarbineer]

A question I keep asking these anti-SCOTUS, anti-judiciary, anti-judicial review typses, that they never answer is,

without the evil 'unelected' SCOTUS, with its 'tyrannical' power of judicial review, how would you propose to keep states and localities from passing gun laws that violated the 2nd amendment?

Rights are unalienable

privileges are subject to the discretion of a bureaucracy or to a 5-4 Scotus majority

...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....

Benito Mussolini


.

Nothing you said has anything to do with the question I posed. That is typical. None of you can answer the question.

How do you propose to overturn state and local laws that violate the 2nd Amendment if you did not have a SCOTUS with the power of judicial review?

You want that power taken away from the Court. Now tell us how you protect the 2nd Amendment without the Court.

 

[rightwinger]

what about the federal government?

You're asking that less than a month after the Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act?

yes. rightwinger mentioned only states. i'm curious as to HIS VIEWS on the federal government.

do keep up slowpoke....

Who else is there to keep conservatives in check when they trample on individual rights?

 

[Contumacious]

A question I keep asking these anti-SCOTUS, anti-judiciary, anti-judicial review typses, that they never answer is,

without the evil 'unelected' SCOTUS, with its 'tyrannical' power of judicial review, how would you propose to keep states and localities from passing gun laws that violated the 2nd amendment?

Rights are unalienable

privileges are subject to the discretion of a bureaucracy or to a 5-4 Scotus majority

...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....

Benito Mussolini


.

Nothing you said has anything to do with the question I posed. That is typical. None of you can answer the question.

How do you propose to overturn state and local laws that violate the 2nd Amendment if you did not have a SCOTUS with the power of judicial review?

You want that power taken away from the Court. Now tell us how you protect the 2nd Amendment without the Court.

Listen ding dong, NOTHING prevents another majority 10 - 20 years from now to conclude that those cases were wrongly decided. NOTHING.

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Rights are unalienable

privileges are subject to the discretion of a bureaucracy or to a 5-4 Scotus majority

...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....

Benito Mussolini


.

Nothing you said has anything to do with the question I posed. That is typical. None of you can answer the question.

How do you propose to overturn state and local laws that violate the 2nd Amendment if you did not have a SCOTUS with the power of judicial review?

You want that power taken away from the Court. Now tell us how you protect the 2nd Amendment without the Court.

Listen ding dong, NOTHING prevents another majority 10 - 20 years from now to conclude that those cases were wrongly decided. NOTHING.

.

With YOUR rules in place, specifically, no right of judicial review,

the state and local laws could not even be challenged in court.

 

[Contumacious]

Nothing you said has anything to do with the question I posed. That is typical. None of you can answer the question.

How do you propose to overturn state and local laws that violate the 2nd Amendment if you did not have a SCOTUS with the power of judicial review?

You want that power taken away from the Court. Now tell us how you protect the 2nd Amendment without the Court.

Listen ding dong, NOTHING prevents another majority 10 - 20 years from now to conclude that those cases were wrongly decided. NOTHING.

.

With YOUR rules in place, specifically, no right of judicial review,

the state and local laws could not even be challenged in court.

"My rules"?

 

[Yurt]

You're asking that less than a month after the Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act?

yes. rightwinger mentioned only states. i'm curious as to HIS VIEWS on the federal government.

do keep up slowpoke....

Who else is there to keep conservatives in check when they trample on individual rights?

right....liberals never trample on individual rights

keep trolling

btw...noticed you failed to answer my question about the federal government...lemming