The Left Loses Ground...

[The Rabbi]

Case law is law. That's why they call it Case LAW. Jesus, read a book.

It's clear that you don't understand what case law is.

It is substitution of the whims of a judge for the words of the Constitution.

The Constitution cannot function without a judiciary with the authority to interpret the Constitution and apply that interpretation to the law.

Without the judiciary able to make case law, unconstitutional laws could not be overturned.

"....interpret...."

Bogus.

Clear that you've never read the Constitution: it's written in English.

So freedom of the press in the 1st amendment needs no interpretation?

Prove it.

Love it!

A total and full speed retreat.

See. That's a classic dum dum move. Now he's claiming you believe something you never said. It never fails. When backed into a corner he comes out with shit like that. It's a sure sign he's lost the argument.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Only a moron would doubt same.

Where is birth control in the Constitution under federal authority?



Tenth Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It's a right to privacy, which is a constitutionally protected right.

Only a moron would doubt same.

Where is birth control in the Constitution under federal authority?



Tenth Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It's a right to privacy, which is a constitutionally protected right.

So you concede that it is not in the Constitution.

You're done.



If Liberals want it in the Constitution, simple enough...and covered in Article five.

I call NYCarb "dum-dum" because he is the stupidest poster on here. When backed into a corner he puts words in your mouth. "So you concede that the Supreme Court is the reincarnation of Adolph Hitler?" Shit like that. He is fun to bait and make fun of. But no one should confuse him with serious intellect.

When I get people like you to claim that privacy is not a constitutionally protected right, it matters little what harmless insults you want to throw at me.

Then I am sure you can tell me where the right to privacy is located in the Constitution, dum dum.

You're blathering irrelevantly, trying to prove an irrelevant point.

It's located in stacks of case law which are in fact part of the Constitution, as the interpretation of it.

It's also located in the 9th amendment.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's a right to privacy, which is a constitutionally protected right.

It's a right to privacy, which is a constitutionally protected right.

So you concede that it is not in the Constitution.

You're done.



If Liberals want it in the Constitution, simple enough...and covered in Article five.

I call NYCarb "dum-dum" because he is the stupidest poster on here. When backed into a corner he puts words in your mouth. "So you concede that the Supreme Court is the reincarnation of Adolph Hitler?" Shit like that. He is fun to bait and make fun of. But no one should confuse him with serious intellect.

When I get people like you to claim that privacy is not a constitutionally protected right, it matters little what harmless insults you want to throw at me.

Then I am sure you can tell me where the right to privacy is located in the Constitution, dum dum.

You're blathering irrelevantly, trying to prove an irrelevant point.

It's located in stacks of case law which are in fact part of the Constitution, as the interpretation of it.

It's also located in the 9th amendment.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I dont see the word "privacy" anywhere in there. Do you have some different edition from mine that contains the word, dum-dum?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Case law is law. That's why they call it Case LAW. Jesus, read a book.

It's clear that you don't understand what case law is.

It is substitution of the whims of a judge for the words of the Constitution.

The Constitution cannot function without a judiciary with the authority to interpret the Constitution and apply that interpretation to the law.

Without the judiciary able to make case law, unconstitutional laws could not be overturned.

"....interpret...."

Bogus.

Clear that you've never read the Constitution: it's written in English.

So freedom of the press in the 1st amendment needs no interpretation?

Prove it.

Love it!

A total and full speed retreat.

I proved you wrong, unless you want to argue that freedom of press requires no judicial interpretation.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's clear that you don't understand what case law is.

It is substitution of the whims of a judge for the words of the Constitution.

The Constitution cannot function without a judiciary with the authority to interpret the Constitution and apply that interpretation to the law.

Without the judiciary able to make case law, unconstitutional laws could not be overturned.

"....interpret...."

Bogus.

Clear that you've never read the Constitution: it's written in English.

So freedom of the press in the 1st amendment needs no interpretation?

Prove it.

Love it!

A total and full speed retreat.

I proved you wrong, unless you want to argue that freedom of press requires no judicial interpretation.

The only thing you proved is that you are a moron, dum dum. You can't answer any questions. All you do is deflect and put up strawmen.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So you concede that it is not in the Constitution.

You're done.



If Liberals want it in the Constitution, simple enough...and covered in Article five.

I call NYCarb "dum-dum" because he is the stupidest poster on here. When backed into a corner he puts words in your mouth. "So you concede that the Supreme Court is the reincarnation of Adolph Hitler?" Shit like that. He is fun to bait and make fun of. But no one should confuse him with serious intellect.

When I get people like you to claim that privacy is not a constitutionally protected right, it matters little what harmless insults you want to throw at me.

Then I am sure you can tell me where the right to privacy is located in the Constitution, dum dum.

You're blathering irrelevantly, trying to prove an irrelevant point.

It's located in stacks of case law which are in fact part of the Constitution, as the interpretation of it.

It's also located in the 9th amendment.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I dont see the word "privacy" anywhere in there. Do you have some different edition from mine that contains the word, dum-dum?

There is no need to include the word because it is contained in the word 'others'. The 9th is specifically designed to thwart people like you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Constitution cannot function without a judiciary with the authority to interpret the Constitution and apply that interpretation to the law.

Without the judiciary able to make case law, unconstitutional laws could not be overturned.

"....interpret...."

Bogus.

Clear that you've never read the Constitution: it's written in English.

So freedom of the press in the 1st amendment needs no interpretation?

Prove it.

Love it!

A total and full speed retreat.

I proved you wrong, unless you want to argue that freedom of press requires no judicial interpretation.

The only thing you proved is that you are a moron, dum dum. You can't answer any questions. All you do is deflect and put up strawmen.

Do you want to defend her claim that the Constitution needs no interpretation?

 

[The Rabbi]

I call NYCarb "dum-dum" because he is the stupidest poster on here. When backed into a corner he puts words in your mouth. "So you concede that the Supreme Court is the reincarnation of Adolph Hitler?" Shit like that. He is fun to bait and make fun of. But no one should confuse him with serious intellect.

When I get people like you to claim that privacy is not a constitutionally protected right, it matters little what harmless insults you want to throw at me.

Then I am sure you can tell me where the right to privacy is located in the Constitution, dum dum.

You're blathering irrelevantly, trying to prove an irrelevant point.

It's located in stacks of case law which are in fact part of the Constitution, as the interpretation of it.

It's also located in the 9th amendment.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I dont see the word "privacy" anywhere in there. Do you have some different edition from mine that contains the word, dum-dum?

There is no need to include the word because it is contained in the word 'others'. The 9th is specifically designed to thwart people like you.

So privacy is not part of the Constitution. Thanks for admitting that, dum dum.
DOes the 9thA confer a right to play the cello?

 

[The Rabbi]

"....interpret...."

Bogus.

Clear that you've never read the Constitution: it's written in English.

So freedom of the press in the 1st amendment needs no interpretation?

Prove it.

Love it!

A total and full speed retreat.

I proved you wrong, unless you want to argue that freedom of press requires no judicial interpretation.

The only thing you proved is that you are a moron, dum dum. You can't answer any questions. All you do is deflect and put up strawmen.

Do you want to defend her claim that the Constitution needs no interpretation?

She can do a fine job humiliating you all by herself. She needs no help from me.

 

[NYcarbineer]

When I get people like you to claim that privacy is not a constitutionally protected right, it matters little what harmless insults you want to throw at me.

Then I am sure you can tell me where the right to privacy is located in the Constitution, dum dum.

You're blathering irrelevantly, trying to prove an irrelevant point.

It's located in stacks of case law which are in fact part of the Constitution, as the interpretation of it.

It's also located in the 9th amendment.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I dont see the word "privacy" anywhere in there. Do you have some different edition from mine that contains the word, dum-dum?

There is no need to include the word because it is contained in the word 'others'. The 9th is specifically designed to thwart people like you.

So privacy is not part of the Constitution. Thanks for admitting that, dum dum.
DOes the 9thA confer a right to play the cello?

I've proven it has.

If you're denied the right to play the cello, then go to court with it and find out.

 

[NYcarbineer]

btw, and PC can relate to this...

...you have the right in this country to send your kids to private school, or to homeschool them.

Find those rights in the Constitution, or admit you don't think they should be rights.

 

[The Rabbi]

Then I am sure you can tell me where the right to privacy is located in the Constitution, dum dum.

You're blathering irrelevantly, trying to prove an irrelevant point.

It's located in stacks of case law which are in fact part of the Constitution, as the interpretation of it.

It's also located in the 9th amendment.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I dont see the word "privacy" anywhere in there. Do you have some different edition from mine that contains the word, dum-dum?

There is no need to include the word because it is contained in the word 'others'. The 9th is specifically designed to thwart people like you.

So privacy is not part of the Constitution. Thanks for admitting that, dum dum.
DOes the 9thA confer a right to play the cello?

I've proven it has.

If you're denied the right to play the cello, then go to court with it and find out.

Thanks for admitting that adolph Hitler was a chief justice of the supreme court. Now be gone, dum dum.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's a right to privacy, which is a constitutionally protected right.

It's a right to privacy, which is a constitutionally protected right.

So you concede that it is not in the Constitution.

You're done.



If Liberals want it in the Constitution, simple enough...and covered in Article five.

I call NYCarb "dum-dum" because he is the stupidest poster on here. When backed into a corner he puts words in your mouth. "So you concede that the Supreme Court is the reincarnation of Adolph Hitler?" Shit like that. He is fun to bait and make fun of. But no one should confuse him with serious intellect.

When I get people like you to claim that privacy is not a constitutionally protected right, it matters little what harmless insults you want to throw at me.

Then I am sure you can tell me where the right to privacy is located in the Constitution, dum dum.

You're blathering irrelevantly, trying to prove an irrelevant point.

It's located in stacks of case law which are in fact part of the Constitution, as the interpretation of it.

It's also located in the 9th amendment.

Quote it.

I call NYCarb "dum-dum" because he is the stupidest poster on here. When backed into a corner he puts words in your mouth. "So you concede that the Supreme Court is the reincarnation of Adolph Hitler?" Shit like that. He is fun to bait and make fun of. But no one should confuse him with serious intellect.

When I get people like you to claim that privacy is not a constitutionally protected right, it matters little what harmless insults you want to throw at me.

Then I am sure you can tell me where the right to privacy is located in the Constitution, dum dum.

You're blathering irrelevantly, trying to prove an irrelevant point.

It's located in stacks of case law which are in fact part of the Constitution, as the interpretation of it.

It's also located in the 9th amendment.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I dont see the word "privacy" anywhere in there. Do you have some different edition from mine that contains the word, dum-dum?

There is no need to include the word because it is contained in the word 'others'. The 9th is specifically designed to thwart people like you.

"There is no need to include blah blah blah...."

A Liberal white flag.



What is significant here is that Liberals deny that our rights are God given....

...they claim that their god, big government, 'awards' rights.

If that's so....then, no doubt, they would list the rights they so generously give out.

Yet here is NYLiar with "There is no need to include blah blah blah...."

 

[PoliticalChic]

btw, and PC can relate to this...

...you have the right in this country to send your kids to private school, or to homeschool them.

Find those rights in the Constitution, or admit you don't think they should be rights.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

 

[Derideo_Te]

View attachment 41344

False assumption!

No atheists are offendeds by theists believing in whatever they want.

They only object when theists impose their religious beliefs on those that don't share their beliefs.

But thanks for exposing the fallacious basis that theists use for hating atheists.

 

[Derideo_Te]

View attachment 41345

Religion preaches socialism!

 

[Wildman]

which reminds me, does the first Amdt. specifically say a person/group etc. has the "RIGHT" to desecrate the American flag ?

you liberfools like NY bullshitter see "RIGHTS" where they never exist, and deny rights where they specifically DO exist, e.g., "The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed". yet the brainless libertraitors will argue this FACT with stupid idiotic mindless rhetoric.

 

[Derideo_Te]

...in the culture war!

The overbearing bullying harassment and browbeating by the Left is finally proving the law of diminishing returns. Recent events have revealed gaping holes developing in the imagined monolithic worldview of Liberals!

The specific battle seemed to be the bumper-sticker 'gay rights,' but, is actually a part of the larger secular war against religion.



1. "...the cultural Left is hoping to dominate the culture...it is overreaching, extending beyond the limits of its power. It is exposing itself to embarrassing cultural defeats and succeeding mainly in hardening conservative resolve.

Four truths are emerging:

First, the battle is not between gay rights and religious liberty—although religious liberty is certainly at stake—but between the sexual revolution and Christianity itself....[the Left's demands for] wholesale changes to the historical doctrines of the church.

Second, not a single orthodox denomination is making or even contemplating such changes.

Third, rather than going quietly, cultural conservatism is showing increasing strength ...opposing leftist campaigns at the ground level, bypassing politics to support those most embattled by radical hate campaigns.

And fourth, the conservative grassroots and conservative public intellectuals are united...




2. The battle of Indiana began when Indiana’s legislature passed a version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), an act that provided, simply enough, that any state action that substantially burdens religious exercise is lawful only if it is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. In other words...when you can, you should avoid compelling people to act against their consciences.... it’s the same general legal standard in the federal RFRA and in similar RFRAs in 19 other states.

3. ... RFRA and the compelling interest standard more broadly have long existed in American law. ...Congress... passed RFRA in 1993. ... to restore religious liberty to the same level of protection it received prior to the Supreme Court’s controversial decision in Employment Division v. Smith(1990), which rejected decades of precedent to hold essentially that religious liberty claims are inferior to rules of general applicability..... President Clinton proudly signed it into law.

[And, before the bogus arguments begin...] It’s a historical fact that religious liberty claims did not protect or legally enable Jim Crow."
Imprimis A monthly digest on liberty and the defense of America s founding principles



In its demands that everyone accept their views.....the Left has bitten off more than it will be able to chew.

You'll be right when states start repealing their laws that legalized same sex marriage.

Most states didnt pass laws legalizing SSM, dum-dum. It was forced on them by activiist homosexual judges.

Case law is law. That's why they call it Case LAW. Jesus, read a book.

It's clear that you don't understand what case law is.

It is substitution of the whims of a judge for the words of the Constitution.

Your ignorance never ceases to amuse, PoliticalSpice.

 

[Derideo_Te]

...in the culture war!

The overbearing bullying harassment and browbeating by the Left is finally proving the law of diminishing returns. Recent events have revealed gaping holes developing in the imagined monolithic worldview of Liberals!

The specific battle seemed to be the bumper-sticker 'gay rights,' but, is actually a part of the larger secular war against religion.



1. "...the cultural Left is hoping to dominate the culture...it is overreaching, extending beyond the limits of its power. It is exposing itself to embarrassing cultural defeats and succeeding mainly in hardening conservative resolve.

Four truths are emerging:

First, the battle is not between gay rights and religious liberty—although religious liberty is certainly at stake—but between the sexual revolution and Christianity itself....[the Left's demands for] wholesale changes to the historical doctrines of the church.

Second, not a single orthodox denomination is making or even contemplating such changes.

Third, rather than going quietly, cultural conservatism is showing increasing strength ...opposing leftist campaigns at the ground level, bypassing politics to support those most embattled by radical hate campaigns.

And fourth, the conservative grassroots and conservative public intellectuals are united...

So I'm not going to address the fact that no such war exists, and I'm not going to address that many members of the American left are Christian and that many Christians support gay rights.

Let's instead say you are completely correct that there's a war between the secular left against religion, especially Christianity. In that case, you picked an absolutely terrible time to claim that the left is losing while Christianity is winning. The most recent Pew study on religion showed a continuing decline in the fraction of Americans who self-identify as Christian. The actual study can be found here. The study showed that in percentage of total population every major Christian group is down over the last few years, and that for most of them, the absolute numbers are also down. Meanwhile, the percentages identifying as either no religion, atheist or agnostic, have all gone up and continue to increase. There's a decent argument that the level of decline of Christianity is being overstated in the popular press but even those making that argument acknowledge a real decline.

Bottom line: if there is any such war, the side that is losing is Christianity.

The reason that the Pew study was created was exactly because the culture war is losing steam.
It is there to convince you that the Left is winning.

If it was.....why would judges be needed to keep changing what voters choose?

Now PoliticalSpice is heading off into Conspiracy Cloud Cuckoo land.

 

[Wildman]

...theists use for hating atheists.

another LIE ! prove that any Christian conservative here hates any atheist for their non-beliefs.

i personally do NOT hate an atheist, i pity them for their intended one way ticket journey to HELL.