Why Liberals Hate Free Speech

[ThoughtCrimes]

"Why Liberals Hate Free Speech"

Ben Carson wants government to punish universities for speech he disagrees with and liberals "hate" free speech - such is the idiocy of the thread premise.

Punish?

You dope....read the Constitution....the federal government has no authority to fund any university.

You really should take some law courses, C_Chamber_Pot.

There is another of your lies!!!!

I've proven beyond any doubt by producing citations from U S v. Butler (1936) that your earlier claim that, "...the federal government has no authority to fund any university...." is false and is made manifestly so in the decision. But rather than admit your error, you lie to avoid admitting you're WRONG and double, double and then double down again. Hubris and stupidity compliment your penchant to lie, Chica!

The federal governments powers are outlined in the Constitution. Any powers not given to the federal government belong to the state. Any court decision that states otherwise is unconstitutional. Now, don't you look stupid?

Actually it's you holding on to ignorance!

Your first statement is nearly correct. However, those powers ENUMERATED (not outlined) may be direct or implied! Very important significance in that differentiation!

Your second statement is in error. You should read and understand my critique of your first statement, then do the same for ALL of Article I and then the same for Amendment X.

Your third statement is totally in error! The founders' intent of each portion of the Constitution were laid out in The Federalist as scribed by Hamilton, Madison and Jay before the ratification of the Constitution to inform The People of its contents to replace the unworkable Articles of Confederation! Hamilton wrote Federalist #78 through #83 regarding the Judicial Branch. I suggest you read those to find the basis of judicial review and it's reasoning (#78). I further suggest that you study closely what Chief Justice Marshall wrote in his LANDMARK decision in Marbury v. Madison (1803) regarding judicial review. Also, engrave the following in your mind for future reference:

"We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges [Supreme Court, sic] say it is." [Emphasis Added] < Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes >

You can suck up to Chica to curry it's favor, but that is a really ill advised proposition!

One last thing. Before you state someone LOOKS STUPID, check to make sure you know just what the fuck you are talking about. Hopefully, you will take that as a lesson learned.

""We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges [Supreme Court, sic] say it is." [Emphasis Added] < Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes >"

This is exactly the sort of lie that Progressives/Liberals tell, and fools like you accept.


There is no such right attached to being a judge.


A real judge, Wm. Rehnquist explained it thus:

"[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s
problems. Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority
of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied
to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a
judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a
quite different light."
THE NOTION OF A LIVING CONSTITUTION*
WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf




Hart to fathom whether you are more stupid and vulgar, or more corrupt.

In either case, you are disgusting.

Damn you're dumb! The bracketed three words you edited in an attempt to change the intent of the author form "The brief writers version..." MEANING LAWYERS vice [Liberal judicial activism] MEANING JUDGES! And any claim that your edit meant something else would have the same ability to fly under its own power as a Yorkshire sow birthing 12 piglets. Don't try to BS that 'cause it don't fly, Chica!

Not only did you LIE by changing the intent of the writer but you also BASTARDISED the quote. And then you were too damn stupid to understand that you were making my point in that Rehnquist was making the same point I was about Judicial Review! DAMN!

This is from your own bloody source, Chica:

"John Marshall’s [Marbury v. Madison (1803) justification for judicial review makes the provision for an independent federal judiciary not only understandable but also thoroughly desirable. Since the judges will be merely interpreting an instrument framed by the people, they should be detached and objective. A mere change in public opinion since the adoption of the Constitution, unaccompanied by a constitutional amendment, should not change the meaning of the Constitution. A merely temporary majoritarian groundswell should not abrogate some individual liberty truly protected by the Constitution." [Emphasis Added]
< http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf pg 404-405>

Those are the facts...to bad, so sad for you ya LIAR!

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

"Why Liberals Hate Free Speech"

Ben Carson wants government to punish universities for speech he disagrees with and liberals "hate" free speech - such is the idiocy of the thread premise.

Punish?

You dope....read the Constitution....the federal government has no authority to fund any university.

You really should take some law courses, C_Chamber_Pot.

There is another of your lies!!!!

I've proven beyond any doubt by producing citations from U S v. Butler (1936) that your earlier claim that, "...the federal government has no authority to fund any university...." is false and is made manifestly so in the decision. But rather than admit your error, you lie to avoid admitting you're WRONG and double, double and then double down again. Hubris and stupidity compliment your penchant to lie, Chica!

The federal governments powers are outlined in the Constitution. Any powers not given to the federal government belong to the state. Any court decision that states otherwise is unconstitutional. Now, don't you look stupid?

Actually it's you holding on to ignorance!

Your first statement is nearly correct. However, those powers ENUMERATED (not outlined) may be direct or implied! Very important significance in that differentiation!

Your second statement is in error. You should read and understand my critique of your first statement, then do the same for ALL of Article I and then the same for Amendment X.

Your third statement is totally in error! The founders' intent of each portion of the Constitution were laid out in The Federalist as scribed by Hamilton, Madison and Jay before the ratification of the Constitution to inform The People of its contents to replace the unworkable Articles of Confederation! Hamilton wrote Federalist #78 through #83 regarding the Judicial Branch. I suggest you read those to find the basis of judicial review and it's reasoning (#78). I further suggest that you study closely what Chief Justice Marshall wrote in his LANDMARK decision in Marbury v. Madison (1803) regarding judicial review. Also, engrave the following in your mind for future reference:

"We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges [Supreme Court, sic] say it is." [Emphasis Added] < Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes >

You can suck up to Chica to curry it's favor, but that is a really ill advised proposition!

One last thing. Before you state someone LOOKS STUPID, check to make sure you know just what the fuck you are talking about. Hopefully, you will take that as a lesson learned.

My statement was 100 percent accurate. The Constitution did not give government the power to fund colleges. Therefore, such power belongs to the states. The federal government has amassed such power, and trampled state rights to the point that the government basically controls everything. This is NOT what our founding fathers wanted. It's also the reason our country is such a mess.

You have the Tea Party dogma down pat! Shit there is no point in trying to discuss a fucking thing with you because you got Da Dogma implanted, like a good little drone!
Explain this statement from a former SCOTUS Chief Justice since you know it all"

"We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges [Supreme Court, sic] say it is." [Emphasis Added] < Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes >
What you have been drilled with, as a good little lemming, is not in agreement with CJ Hughes, so are you right or is that former Chief Justice right and you know more that he did?

You have no understanding of the difference between direct and implied powers of Congress or judicial review. You are 100% screwed up and wrong! Either post absolute proof of your idiotic assertions or STFU!

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I fully support free speech. I'm a liberal, we invented it. Most are not like me.

You are no liberal, you are a leftist.

Nope...

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Why Liberals Hate Free Speech"

Ben Carson wants government to punish universities for speech he disagrees with and liberals "hate" free speech - such is the idiocy of the thread premise.

Punish?

You dope....read the Constitution....the federal government has no authority to fund any university.

You really should take some law courses, C_Chamber_Pot.

There is another of your lies!!!!

I've proven beyond any doubt by producing citations from U S v. Butler (1936) that your earlier claim that, "...the federal government has no authority to fund any university...." is false and is made manifestly so in the decision. But rather than admit your error, you lie to avoid admitting you're WRONG and double, double and then double down again. Hubris and stupidity compliment your penchant to lie, Chica!

Cite where the Constitution gives such authority.....

Can't, can you.



OK...OK...It's too late to prevent you from making an ass of yourself, but....stop begging: here's further remediation:

The only document by which American have agreed to be governed is the United States Constitution. In fact, it is known as 'the law of the land.'

1. All Supreme Court Justices may only vote according to the language of the United States Constitution.

2. Any issue not specific to the enumerated powers may not be legislated by the federal government....and must remain within the province of the state courts.

That would be American jurisprudence.


3. The Constitution itself provided the exact, and only, method of altering the text.....the amendment process.

Any other alteration is an illegal act.....the method of Liberals and Progressives.

4. If any legislation can be shown to be consistent with the language of the Constitution, as used during ratification, it must.....must....be found constitutional.
If not covered by the enumerated powers, Article 1, section 8, it must be only judged by state law.


Never make the mistake of posting that Supreme Court Justices have any.....any.....authority to change, alter, re-write the Constitution.

The Judicial Powers were vested and SCOTUS came about via Article III. That wasn't hard at all, was it! Judicial Review was discussed by Hamilton in Federalist #78 which you have refused to even comment on in the past because it would put the LIE to your idiotic notions that the Constitution was not subject to any interpretation but your own!

According to you, Judicial Review is unconstitutional and all SCOTUS case law should be thrown out! It is defined as, "Judicial review is the idea, fundamental to the US system of government, that the actions of the executive and legislative branches of government are subject to review and possible invalidation by the judicial branch. Judicial review allows the Supreme Court to take an active role in ensuring that the other branches of government abide by the constitution. Judicial review was established in the classic case of Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)." [Emphasis Added] < Judicial Review >

1. IF as you state, "All Supreme Court Justices may only vote according to the language of the United States Constitution" why are there dissenting opinions in so very many cases? Answer that logically if "All Supreme Court Justices" as you claim. Why are all SCOTUS decisions unanimous? And where can your claim be found in the Constitution, Chica, hmmmmm?

2. You claim that, "Any issue not specific to the enumerated powers may not be legislated by the federal government....and must remain within the province of the state courts" is hot air! With just consideration of the Supremacy Clause, your claim is shot full of holes. That clause can't be found in Article !, Section 8, Chica. I could go on, but it would be nothing more than casting pearls! And where can your claim be found in the Constitution, Chica, hmmmmm?

3. You make yet another false claim with, "The Constitution itself provided the exact, and only, method of altering the text.....the amendment process." You again ignore Judicial Review to your discredit as a reasonable person (being kind here). If review by the Supremes is unconstitutional in your mind, and all those cases SCOTUS decided, as in U S v. Butler for one, by INTERPRETING Constitutional language, the Constitution itself would be no better off than old Articles of Confederation and Butler would never have obtained standing before the Court. But I doubt you even understand what the hell I'm talking about!!!!
But where can your claim be found in the Constitution, Chica, hmmmmm?

4. Your final false claim, "If any legislation can be shown to be consistent with the language of the Constitution, as used during ratification, it must.....must....be found constitutional. If not covered by the enumerated powers, Article 1, section 8, it must be only judged by state law" can only be considered ill informed in the least and totally ignorant at the nadir! The obvious case that would put the LIE to that sophistry Would be a case between two Federal agencies or the Federal and/or private corporate interest. Which State law would be used in those cases where a State wasn't even a party to the case? That doesn't even get past the smell test at 100 yards. And where can your claim be found in the Constitution, Chica, hmmmmm?

In your closing remark you wrote, "Never make the mistake of posting that Supreme Court Justices have any.....any.....authority to change, alter, re-write the Constitution." You don't agree because you would stick with your sophistry rather that be an honest person about your errors to lie instead. I suggest that you edify yourself before you go off halfcocked with stupid and unfounded characterizations of either the Constitution or others to whom you respond with such idiotic drivel, Chica!

READ! - "We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges [Supreme Court, sic] say it is." [Emphasis Added] < Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes >

That's exactly the sort of lie that morons like you pretend (unless you're so stupid you really believe it) to belive.




Now...for that sniveling coward, Hughes....

Here's you lesson for today:


1. To see the abject cowardice of the Justices, note that in invalidating the Guffey-Vinson Coal Act on May 18, 1936, less than a year before Roosevelt attempted to pack the court, Justice Charles Evans Hughes said that federal laws restricting local labor relations provisions were unconstitutional, that "the relations of employer and employee is a local relation" and "the evils are all local evils over which the federal government has no legislative control."

He went on to say "Otherwise in view of the multitude of indirect effects Congress in its discretion could assume control of virtually all of the activities of the people to the subversion of the fundamental principles of the Constitution."

And..."... it is not for the court to amend the Constitution by judicial decision."


Do you understand that????
Justices have no authority to amend the Constitution!!!
And the federal government has no role inside the states!!!!!!!!!!

[And in a concurring opinion holding (298 U. S. 238) the Bituminous Coal Act of 1935 in conflict with the Constitution, this was said by Chief Justice Hughes:
"If the people desire to give Congress the power to regulate industries within the State, and the relation of employers and employees in those industries, they are at liberty to declare their will in the appropriate manner; but it is not for the Court to amend the Constitution by judicial decision." http://www.barefootsworld.net/nortonuc08.html]




2. But, eleven months later, Chief Justice Hughes, spoke for the majority in finding the Wagner Labor Relations Act constitutional. Yes, he said...Congress could regulate labor relations in manufacturing plants.


Roosevelt didn't end America as the Founders envisioned it.
Nor did Hughes....

No....imbeciles like you did.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. "....if you post right-wing dogma and sound like a paranoid moron on a site with leftist bent, don't expect to be hanging around too long..."

What!!!!


You waited almost 400 posts before agreeing with the title of the thread????

Yup: "Liberals Hate Free Speech"


(You put your foot in your mouth again, huh?)


2. "They've seen more than enough of your kind..."

Hey....watch it buster!

You never saw 'my kind' before. I'm one of a kind....and the best you've ever encountered.
Creating these threads .... one of my vanities. I find it satisfying to perform, convivial, competitive, absorbing and even artistic.

What amazes me is that poets don't rush home, unpack their pens, and write odes....paeans.... to my posts!


I’m kind of surprised I’m not an action figure by now.

Not to mention, you're exceedingly humble..

Y'know....
What the world needs is more geniuses with humility, there are so few of us left.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I fully support free speech. I'm a liberal, we invented it. Most are not like me.

You are no liberal, you are a leftist.

Nope...

Yup....

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I fully support free speech. I'm a liberal, we invented it. Most are not like me.

You are no liberal, you are a leftist.

Nope...

Yup....

Prove it. Oh wait, you can't. And so ends that my little liar.

Going to make up some nice quotes of things other people never said for us today? Darwin proclaiming Jesus as his savior or Sanger saying how much she loved dead black babies for dinner? How many lies will you tell us today??

 

[PoliticalChic]

I fully support free speech. I'm a liberal, we invented it. Most are not like me.

You are no liberal, you are a leftist.

Nope...

Yup....

Prove it. Oh wait, you can't. And so ends that my little liar.

Going to make up some nice quotes of things other people never said for us today? Darwin proclaiming Jesus as his savior or Sanger saying how much she loved dead black babies for dinner? How many lies will you tell us today??

How come you're the only one who claims it isn't true?

Or....you can prove me wrong with a link supporting your claim.


But be aware....I never lie.
You're a socialist.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I fully support free speech. I'm a liberal, we invented it. Most are not like me.

You are no liberal, you are a leftist.

Nope...

Yep.

You have nothing in common with Jefferson, Mason, Paine, et al.

You espouse the ideals of Marx, Lenin, Pot, Stalin, etc.

You are a leftist, an advocate of absolute collectivism and totalitarianism.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

"Why Liberals Hate Free Speech"

Ben Carson wants government to punish universities for speech he disagrees with and liberals "hate" free speech - such is the idiocy of the thread premise.

Punish?

You dope....read the Constitution....the federal government has no authority to fund any university.

You really should take some law courses, C_Chamber_Pot.

There is another of your lies!!!!

I've proven beyond any doubt by producing citations from U S v. Butler (1936) that your earlier claim that, "...the federal government has no authority to fund any university...." is false and is made manifestly so in the decision. But rather than admit your error, you lie to avoid admitting you're WRONG and double, double and then double down again. Hubris and stupidity compliment your penchant to lie, Chica!

Cite where the Constitution gives such authority.....

Can't, can you.



OK...OK...It's too late to prevent you from making an ass of yourself, but....stop begging: here's further remediation:

The only document by which American have agreed to be governed is the United States Constitution. In fact, it is known as 'the law of the land.'

1. All Supreme Court Justices may only vote according to the language of the United States Constitution.

2. Any issue not specific to the enumerated powers may not be legislated by the federal government....and must remain within the province of the state courts.

That would be American jurisprudence.


3. The Constitution itself provided the exact, and only, method of altering the text.....the amendment process.

Any other alteration is an illegal act.....the method of Liberals and Progressives.

4. If any legislation can be shown to be consistent with the language of the Constitution, as used during ratification, it must.....must....be found constitutional.
If not covered by the enumerated powers, Article 1, section 8, it must be only judged by state law.


Never make the mistake of posting that Supreme Court Justices have any.....any.....authority to change, alter, re-write the Constitution.

The Judicial Powers were vested and SCOTUS came about via Article III. That wasn't hard at all, was it! Judicial Review was discussed by Hamilton in Federalist #78 which you have refused to even comment on in the past because it would put the LIE to your idiotic notions that the Constitution was not subject to any interpretation but your own!

According to you, Judicial Review is unconstitutional and all SCOTUS case law should be thrown out! It is defined as, "Judicial review is the idea, fundamental to the US system of government, that the actions of the executive and legislative branches of government are subject to review and possible invalidation by the judicial branch. Judicial review allows the Supreme Court to take an active role in ensuring that the other branches of government abide by the constitution. Judicial review was established in the classic case of Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)." [Emphasis Added] < Judicial Review >

1. IF as you state, "All Supreme Court Justices may only vote according to the language of the United States Constitution" why are there dissenting opinions in so very many cases? Answer that logically if "All Supreme Court Justices" as you claim. Why are all SCOTUS decisions unanimous? And where can your claim be found in the Constitution, Chica, hmmmmm?

2. You claim that, "Any issue not specific to the enumerated powers may not be legislated by the federal government....and must remain within the province of the state courts" is hot air! With just consideration of the Supremacy Clause, your claim is shot full of holes. That clause can't be found in Article !, Section 8, Chica. I could go on, but it would be nothing more than casting pearls! And where can your claim be found in the Constitution, Chica, hmmmmm?

3. You make yet another false claim with, "The Constitution itself provided the exact, and only, method of altering the text.....the amendment process." You again ignore Judicial Review to your discredit as a reasonable person (being kind here). If review by the Supremes is unconstitutional in your mind, and all those cases SCOTUS decided, as in U S v. Butler for one, by INTERPRETING Constitutional language, the Constitution itself would be no better off than old Articles of Confederation and Butler would never have obtained standing before the Court. But I doubt you even understand what the hell I'm talking about!!!!
But where can your claim be found in the Constitution, Chica, hmmmmm?

4. Your final false claim, "If any legislation can be shown to be consistent with the language of the Constitution, as used during ratification, it must.....must....be found constitutional. If not covered by the enumerated powers, Article 1, section 8, it must be only judged by state law" can only be considered ill informed in the least and totally ignorant at the nadir! The obvious case that would put the LIE to that sophistry Would be a case between two Federal agencies or the Federal and/or private corporate interest. Which State law would be used in those cases where a State wasn't even a party to the case? That doesn't even get past the smell test at 100 yards. And where can your claim be found in the Constitution, Chica, hmmmmm?

In your closing remark you wrote, "Never make the mistake of posting that Supreme Court Justices have any.....any.....authority to change, alter, re-write the Constitution." You don't agree because you would stick with your sophistry rather that be an honest person about your errors to lie instead. I suggest that you edify yourself before you go off halfcocked with stupid and unfounded characterizations of either the Constitution or others to whom you respond with such idiotic drivel, Chica!

READ! - "We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges [Supreme Court, sic] say it is." [Emphasis Added] < Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes >

That's exactly the sort of lie that morons like you pretend (unless you're so stupid you really believe it) to belive.




Now...for that sniveling coward, Hughes....

Here's you lesson for today:


1. To see the abject cowardice of the Justices, note that in invalidating the Guffey-Vinson Coal Act on May 18, 1936, less than a year before Roosevelt attempted to pack the court, Justice Charles Evans Hughes said that federal laws restricting local labor relations provisions were unconstitutional, that "the relations of employer and employee is a local relation" and "the evils are all local evils over which the federal government has no legislative control."

He went on to say "Otherwise in view of the multitude of indirect effects Congress in its discretion could assume control of virtually all of the activities of the people to the subversion of the fundamental principles of the Constitution."

And..."... it is not for the court to amend the Constitution by judicial decision."


Do you understand that????
Justices have no authority to amend the Constitution!!!
And the federal government has no role inside the states!!!!!!!!!!

[And in a concurring opinion holding (298 U. S. 238) the Bituminous Coal Act of 1935 in conflict with the Constitution, this was said by Chief Justice Hughes:
"If the people desire to give Congress the power to regulate industries within the State, and the relation of employers and employees in those industries, they are at liberty to declare their will in the appropriate manner; but it is not for the Court to amend the Constitution by judicial decision." http://www.barefootsworld.net/nortonuc08.html]




2. But, eleven months later, Chief Justice Hughes, spoke for the majority in finding the Wagner Labor Relations Act constitutional. Yes, he said...Congress could regulate labor relations in manufacturing plants.


Roosevelt didn't end America as the Founders envisioned it.
Nor did Hughes....

No....imbeciles like you did.

Damn but did you step in it again! I've told you before that you should read your citations IN FULL and UNDERSTAND THE CONTEXT! Instead, your self-inflect another custard pie in the face, fool! Instead of C&P'ing from a book you should have done due diligence and looked up the decision in Carter v. Carter Coal Co. I wrote a piece on that case back around 2007 and knew just as I read your post that you were clueless about what Hughes wrote in his concurrence resulting in your erroneous and faulty assumption of the CONTEXT!

Carter v. Carter Coal Co. revolved around legislation attempting to stabilize coal prices and went so far as to attempt to control prices INTRASTATE! Intrastate commerce is a States right covered by Amendment X and is not an enumerated power of Congress which only has the power to regulate INTERSTATE commerce. So in CJ Hughes concurring opinion, which you posted out of CONTEXT erroneously, he wrote the following (with your out of context bit underlined):

"The power to regulate interstate commerce embraces the power to protect that commerce from injury, whatever may be the source of the dangers which threaten it, and to adopt any appropriate means to that end. Second Employers' Liability Cases, 223 U.S. 1, 51. Congress thus has adequate authority to maintain the orderly conduct of interstate commerce and to provide for the peaceful settlement of disputes which threaten it. Texas & N.O. R. Co. v. Railway Clerks, 281 U.S. 548, 570. But Congress may not use this protective authority as a pretext for the exertion of power to regulate activities and relations within the States which affect interstate commerce only indirectly. Otherwise, in view of the multitude of indirect effect, Congress, in its discretion, [p318] could assume control of virtually all the activities of the people, to the subversion of the fundamental principle of the Constitution. If the people desire to give Congress the power to regulate industries within the State, and the relations of employers and employees in those industries, they are at liberty to declare their will in the appropriate manner, but it is not for the Court to amend the Constitution by judicial decision." [Emphasis Added] < Carter v. Carter Coal Co. | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute >

Also, you stated that CJ Hughes also said this regarding labor relations. Here is the full quote from Carter v. Carter coal Co. in CONTEXT (with your out of context bit underlined) which had absolutely NOTHING to do with labor relations, as explained by CJ Hughes, and irrelevant vis-à-vis any decision regarding the Guffey-Vinson Coal Act on May 18, 1936:

"Much stress is put upon the evils which come from the struggle between employers and employees over the matter of wages, working conditions, the right of collective bargaining, etc., and the resulting strikes, curtailment and irregularity of production and effect on prices, and it is insisted that interstate commerce is greatly affected thereby. But, in addition to what has just been said, the conclusive answer is that the evils are all local evils over which the federal government has no legislative control. The relation of employer and employee is a local relation. At common law, it is one of the domestic relations. The wages are paid for the doing of local work. Working conditions are obviously local conditions. T he employees are not engaged in or about commerce, but exclusively in producing a commodity. And the controversies and evils which it is the object of the [p309] act to regulate and minimize are local controversies and evils affecting local work undertaken to accomplish that local result. Such effect as they may have upon commerce, however extensive it may be, is secondary and indirect. An increase in the greatness of the effect adds to its importance. It does not alter its character." [Emphasis Added] < Ibid >

That takes care of your idiotic response to the last sentence in my post to which you responded. You have yet all the rest to which to respond, but I doubt you will with the ass kicking your getting. Now get a towel and wipe that custard pie off your face, fool, AND ENGAGE YOU BRAIN BEFORE ENGAGING YOUR FINGERS ON THAT KEYBOARD you twisted twit!

 

[sealybobo]

The pushback from within the Left has begun.

These true, honest liberals have had the balls to stand up against the Regressive Left, and I sure hope the momentum continues:

• The political correctness cops are going to ruin the progressive cause
  
• Bill Maher Rails Against Crazy Political Correctness From Liberals Tells Media Matters to Shut The F ck Up Video RealClearPolitics
• Jerry Seinfeld says political correctness is hurting comedy - CBS News
• Don Lemon weighs in on PC culture Liberals are the most easily offended and the least tolerant - Salon.com
• Not a Very P.C. Thing to Say -- NYMag
• Liberal Turley against political correctness in News Forum
• Are Liberals Becoming Too Sensitive and Politically Correct
• Jim Webb says Democratic Party has lost its way - The Washington Post
• John Stuart Mill s Argument Against Political...
• Dem Blames Political Correctness for Fort Hood Workplace Violence Controversy - ABC News
• Is the New Political Correctness Already Dying -- NYMag
• I don t know what to do you guys Fredrik deBoer
• http://www.forwardprogressives.com/liberals-becoming-sensitive-politically-correct/
• http://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8706323/college-professor-afraid
• http://www.socialmemorycomplex.net/leftlibertarian/2012/06/12/a-leftist-critique-of-political-correctness/
• My view: Political correctness should not inhibit free speech
  
• http://scienceblogs.com/webeasties/2013/05/21/science-racism-and-political-correctness/
• http://www.hawkeyelounge.com/threads/liberal-columnist-leonard-pitts-asks-if-weve-overdone-political-correctness.130665/
• #CancelColbert and the Return of the Anti-Liberal Left
• REED: When liberals become illiberal
• PC Police Out Of Control In Possibly The Most Absurd Story I've Ever Come Across
• “Political Correctness” | The Progressive Professor
• How Liberals Ruined College
• Rushdie warns of new dangers to free speech in West

George Bush got Pat Tillman killed.

Soldier Speaks Up A Decade After Pat Tillman's Friendly-Fire Death

 

[Uncensored2008]

George Bush got Pat Tillman killed.

Soldier Speaks Up A Decade After Pat Tillman's Friendly-Fire Death

I thought BOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSHHHHHH personally assassinated Tillman, right after setting the charges on the WTC to fake 9/11 and blame it on the democrats Muslim allies?



There is a reason you are the silly bonobo

 

[sealybobo]

George Bush got Pat Tillman killed.

Soldier Speaks Up A Decade After Pat Tillman's Friendly-Fire Death

I thought BOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSHHHHHH personally assassinated Tillman, right after setting the charges on the WTC to fake 9/11 and blame it on the democrats Muslim allies?



There is a reason you are the silly bonobo

And I thought Hillary killed those Americans in Bengazi and pissed on their graves.

 

[Uncensored2008]

And I thought Hillary killed those Americans in Bengazi and pissed on their graves.

Nah, just dancing on their graves.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

I fully support free speech. I'm a liberal, we invented it. Most are not like me.

You are no liberal, you are a leftist.

Nope...

Yup....

Prove it. Oh wait, you can't. And so ends that my little liar.

Going to make up some nice quotes of things other people never said for us today? Darwin proclaiming Jesus as his savior or Sanger saying how much she loved dead black babies for dinner? How many lies will you tell us today??

How come you're the only one who claims it isn't true?

Or....you can prove me wrong with a link supporting your claim.


But be aware....I never lie.

You even lie about never lying, Chica! You don't have an honest bone in your body!

In your post #436 above [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 44 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ], you cited this quote from http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf.
"[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."
But you didn't faithfully reproduce the quote which actually read:
"The brief writer’s version seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."

The underlined portions in both quotes above display the difference. In the original, in blue font, the author was speaking about the case brief's written by LAWYERS. But that didn't jive with your desired narrative so you edited, read that as LIED, it to shift the subject from LAWYERS to JUDGES, with your bracketed "Liberal judicial activism". That is changing truth to falsehood or in common English, LYING! You altered Rehnquist's entire meaning and intent to play the alter quote into your game by LYING. That is not only lying, but truly despicable dishonesty and conduct.

I understand why you didn't respond to my post #441 [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ] which disclosed this same dishonest conduct. I would have let it go until I read the post to which I'm responding [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum post #448 ] proclaiming that you "never lie". You are an utterly disgustingly flawed person. Oh and you can expect to see this post showing up each and every time you claim that you "never lie", LIAR!

 

[PoliticalChic]

You are no liberal, you are a leftist.

Nope...

Yup....

Prove it. Oh wait, you can't. And so ends that my little liar.

Going to make up some nice quotes of things other people never said for us today? Darwin proclaiming Jesus as his savior or Sanger saying how much she loved dead black babies for dinner? How many lies will you tell us today??

How come you're the only one who claims it isn't true?

Or....you can prove me wrong with a link supporting your claim.


But be aware....I never lie.

You even lie about never lying, Chica! You don't have an honest bone in your body!

In your post #436 above [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 44 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ], you cited this quote from http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf.
"[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."
But you didn't faithfully reproduce the quote which actually read:
"The brief writer’s version seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."

The underlined portions in both quotes above display the difference. In the original, in blue font, the author was speaking about the case brief's written by LAWYERS. But that didn't jive with your desired narrative so you edited, read that as LIED, it to shift the subject from LAWYERS to JUDGES, with your bracketed "Liberal judicial activism". That is changing truth to falsehood or in common English, LYING! You altered Rehnquist's entire meaning and intent to play the alter quote into your game by LYING. That is not only lying, but truly despicable dishonesty and conduct.

I understand why you didn't respond to my post #441 [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ] which disclosed this same dishonest conduct. I would have let it go until I read the post to which I'm responding [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum post #448 ] proclaiming that you "never lie". You are an utterly disgustingly flawed person. Oh and you can expect to see this post showing up each and every time you claim that you "never lie", LIAR!

The Constitution can be altered in only one way: the amendment process.
See article five.

If you had ever......ever.....studied history you'd know that.


Oh....and, BTW.....I never lie.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Nope...

Yup....

Prove it. Oh wait, you can't. And so ends that my little liar.

Going to make up some nice quotes of things other people never said for us today? Darwin proclaiming Jesus as his savior or Sanger saying how much she loved dead black babies for dinner? How many lies will you tell us today??

How come you're the only one who claims it isn't true?

Or....you can prove me wrong with a link supporting your claim.


But be aware....I never lie.

You even lie about never lying, Chica! You don't have an honest bone in your body!

In your post #436 above [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 44 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ], you cited this quote from http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf.
"[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."
But you didn't faithfully reproduce the quote which actually read:
"The brief writer’s version seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."

The underlined portions in both quotes above display the difference. In the original, in blue font, the author was speaking about the case brief's written by LAWYERS. But that didn't jive with your desired narrative so you edited, read that as LIED, it to shift the subject from LAWYERS to JUDGES, with your bracketed "Liberal judicial activism". That is changing truth to falsehood or in common English, LYING! You altered Rehnquist's entire meaning and intent to play the alter quote into your game by LYING. That is not only lying, but truly despicable dishonesty and conduct.

I understand why you didn't respond to my post #441 [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ] which disclosed this same dishonest conduct. I would have let it go until I read the post to which I'm responding [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum post #448 ] proclaiming that you "never lie". You are an utterly disgustingly flawed person. Oh and you can expect to see this post showing up each and every time you claim that you "never lie", LIAR!

The Constitution can be altered in only one way: the amendment process.
See article five.

If you had ever......ever.....studied history you'd know that.


Oh....and, BTW.....I never lie.

Article V has absolutely nothing to do with Judicial Review or any SCOTUS interpretation of a law or circumstance in law which may come before that body. Live with that Chica.
You lied again and were warned, so...

You even lie about never lying, Chica! You don't have an honest bone in your body!

In your post #436 above [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 44 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ], you cited this quote from http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf.
"[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."
But you didn't faithfully reproduce the quote which actually read:
"The brief writer’s version seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."

The underlined portions in both quotes above display the difference. In the original, in blue font, the author was speaking about the case brief's written by LAWYERS. But that didn't jive with your desired narrative so you edited, read that as LIED, it to shift the subject from LAWYERS to JUDGES, with your bracketed "Liberal judicial activism". That is changing truth to falsehood or in common English, LYING! You altered Rehnquist's entire meaning and intent to play the alter quote into your game by LYING. That is not only lying, but truly despicable dishonesty and conduct.

I understand why you didn't respond to my post #441 [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ] which disclosed this same dishonest conduct. I would have let it go until I read the post to which I'm responding [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum post #448 ] proclaiming that you "never lie". You are an utterly disgustingly flawed person. Oh and you can expect to see this post showing up each and every time you claim that you "never lie", LIAR!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yup....

Prove it. Oh wait, you can't. And so ends that my little liar.

Going to make up some nice quotes of things other people never said for us today? Darwin proclaiming Jesus as his savior or Sanger saying how much she loved dead black babies for dinner? How many lies will you tell us today??

How come you're the only one who claims it isn't true?

Or....you can prove me wrong with a link supporting your claim.


But be aware....I never lie.

You even lie about never lying, Chica! You don't have an honest bone in your body!

In your post #436 above [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 44 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ], you cited this quote from http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf.
"[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."
But you didn't faithfully reproduce the quote which actually read:
"The brief writer’s version seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."

The underlined portions in both quotes above display the difference. In the original, in blue font, the author was speaking about the case brief's written by LAWYERS. But that didn't jive with your desired narrative so you edited, read that as LIED, it to shift the subject from LAWYERS to JUDGES, with your bracketed "Liberal judicial activism". That is changing truth to falsehood or in common English, LYING! You altered Rehnquist's entire meaning and intent to play the alter quote into your game by LYING. That is not only lying, but truly despicable dishonesty and conduct.

I understand why you didn't respond to my post #441 [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ] which disclosed this same dishonest conduct. I would have let it go until I read the post to which I'm responding [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum post #448 ] proclaiming that you "never lie". You are an utterly disgustingly flawed person. Oh and you can expect to see this post showing up each and every time you claim that you "never lie", LIAR!

The Constitution can be altered in only one way: the amendment process.
See article five.

If you had ever......ever.....studied history you'd know that.


Oh....and, BTW.....I never lie.

Article V has absolutely nothing to do with Judicial Review or any SCOTUS interpretation of a law or circumstance in law which may come before that body. Live with that Chica.
You lied again and were warned, so...

You even lie about never lying, Chica! You don't have an honest bone in your body!

In your post #436 above [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 44 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ], you cited this quote from http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf.
"[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."
But you didn't faithfully reproduce the quote which actually read:
"The brief writer’s version seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."

The underlined portions in both quotes above display the difference. In the original, in blue font, the author was speaking about the case brief's written by LAWYERS. But that didn't jive with your desired narrative so you edited, read that as LIED, it to shift the subject from LAWYERS to JUDGES, with your bracketed "Liberal judicial activism". That is changing truth to falsehood or in common English, LYING! You altered Rehnquist's entire meaning and intent to play the alter quote into your game by LYING. That is not only lying, but truly despicable dishonesty and conduct.

I understand why you didn't respond to my post #441 [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ] which disclosed this same dishonest conduct. I would have let it go until I read the post to which I'm responding [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum post #448 ] proclaiming that you "never lie". You are an utterly disgustingly flawed person. Oh and you can expect to see this post showing up each and every time you claim that you "never lie", LIAR!

"Article V has absolutely nothing to do with Judicial Review or any SCOTUS interpretation of a law or circumstance in law which may come before that body. "


Gads, you're a fool.

Any time the court rules without tying the ruling to the text of the Constitution,....it is illegal.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Prove it. Oh wait, you can't. And so ends that my little liar.

Going to make up some nice quotes of things other people never said for us today? Darwin proclaiming Jesus as his savior or Sanger saying how much she loved dead black babies for dinner? How many lies will you tell us today??

How come you're the only one who claims it isn't true?

Or....you can prove me wrong with a link supporting your claim.


But be aware....I never lie.

You even lie about never lying, Chica! You don't have an honest bone in your body!

In your post #436 above [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 44 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ], you cited this quote from http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf.
"[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."
But you didn't faithfully reproduce the quote which actually read:
"The brief writer’s version seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."

The underlined portions in both quotes above display the difference. In the original, in blue font, the author was speaking about the case brief's written by LAWYERS. But that didn't jive with your desired narrative so you edited, read that as LIED, it to shift the subject from LAWYERS to JUDGES, with your bracketed "Liberal judicial activism". That is changing truth to falsehood or in common English, LYING! You altered Rehnquist's entire meaning and intent to play the alter quote into your game by LYING. That is not only lying, but truly despicable dishonesty and conduct.

I understand why you didn't respond to my post #441 [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ] which disclosed this same dishonest conduct. I would have let it go until I read the post to which I'm responding [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum post #448 ] proclaiming that you "never lie". You are an utterly disgustingly flawed person. Oh and you can expect to see this post showing up each and every time you claim that you "never lie", LIAR!

The Constitution can be altered in only one way: the amendment process.
See article five.

If you had ever......ever.....studied history you'd know that.


Oh....and, BTW.....I never lie.

Article V has absolutely nothing to do with Judicial Review or any SCOTUS interpretation of a law or circumstance in law which may come before that body. Live with that Chica.
You lied again and were warned, so...

You even lie about never lying, Chica! You don't have an honest bone in your body!

In your post #436 above [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 44 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ], you cited this quote from http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf.
"[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."
But you didn't faithfully reproduce the quote which actually read:
"The brief writer’s version seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."

The underlined portions in both quotes above display the difference. In the original, in blue font, the author was speaking about the case brief's written by LAWYERS. But that didn't jive with your desired narrative so you edited, read that as LIED, it to shift the subject from LAWYERS to JUDGES, with your bracketed "Liberal judicial activism". That is changing truth to falsehood or in common English, LYING! You altered Rehnquist's entire meaning and intent to play the alter quote into your game by LYING. That is not only lying, but truly despicable dishonesty and conduct.

I understand why you didn't respond to my post #441 [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ] which disclosed this same dishonest conduct. I would have let it go until I read the post to which I'm responding [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum post #448 ] proclaiming that you "never lie". You are an utterly disgustingly flawed person. Oh and you can expect to see this post showing up each and every time you claim that you "never lie", LIAR!

"Article V has absolutely nothing to do with Judicial Review or any SCOTUS interpretation of a law or circumstance in law which may come before that body. "


Gads, you're a fool.

Any time the court rules without tying the ruling to the text of the Constitution,....it is illegal.

Learn to read and understand ENGLISH, fool! Interpretation of the law or circumstances in law would include the Constitution, DUNCE!

 

[danielpalos]

George Bush got Pat Tillman killed.

Soldier Speaks Up A Decade After Pat Tillman's Friendly-Fire Death

I thought BOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSHHHHHH personally assassinated Tillman, right after setting the charges on the WTC to fake 9/11 and blame it on the democrats Muslim allies?



There is a reason you are the silly bonobo

don't get me started with Hominidae rights.