Activist GOP Court Reveals True GOP Agenda

[Liability]

Many who support this will regret this soon enough. Then you have the legal wannabees here who ignore the dissenters on the SCOTUS.

read the dissent

Yes. Read the idiotic dissent.

Then read Justice Scalia's concurrence with the majority decision and witness him skewering the dishonesty expressed in the dissent.

Unfortunately, on this subject Scalia threw any judicial objectivity and discretion to the wind. * * * *

Absolute nonsense.

What Justice Scalia did (something Justice Stevens was unwilling to do) was to give the words of the Constitution their intended and actual and literal meaning and effect.

There is nothing "unobjective" about fidelity to the actual words of the Constitutuion.

The dishonest dissent was shameful and Justice Scalia exposed it. Shame on Justice Stevens and the other three dissenters.

But Bravo for Justice Scalia.

"Congress shall make no law ..."

Nevertheless, Congress did make such a law.

The Court, quite properly, set that law aside.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Yes. Read the idiotic dissent.

Then read Justice Scalia's concurrence with the majority decision and witness him skewering the dishonesty expressed in the dissent.

Unfortunately, on this subject Scalia threw any judicial objectivity and discretion to the wind. * * * *

Absolute nonsense.

What Justice Scalia did (something Justice Stevens was unwilling to do) was to give the words of the Constitution their intended and actual and literal meaning and effect.

There is nothing "unobjective" about fidelity to the actual words of the Constitutuion.

The dishonest dissent was shameful and Justice Scalia exposed it. Shame on Justice Stevens and the other three dissenters.

But Bravo for Justice Scalia.

"Congress shall make no law ..."

Nevertheless, Congress did make such a law.

The Court, quite properly, set that law aside.

Madison, Hamilton and other Founding Fathers disagreed with each other here...yet you the oh-so-wise-douche-of-USMB, have the one true answer?

You can keep sidetracking the issue. It is what people of limited minds do.

There is room for disagreement on most everything, but when people like you speak about fidelity, I hear a forked tongue speaking shit to truth.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Yes. Read the idiotic dissent.

Then read Justice Scalia's concurrence with the majority decision and witness him skewering the dishonesty expressed in the dissent.

Unfortunately, on this subject Scalia threw any judicial objectivity and discretion to the wind. * * * *

Absolute nonsense.

What Justice Scalia did (something Justice Stevens was unwilling to do) was to give the words of the Constitution their intended and actual and literal meaning and effect.

There is nothing "unobjective" about fidelity to the actual words of the Constitutuion.

The dishonest dissent was shameful and Justice Scalia exposed it. Shame on Justice Stevens and the other three dissenters.

But Bravo for Justice Scalia.

"Congress shall make no law ..."

Nevertheless, Congress did make such a law.

The Court, quite properly, set that law aside.

But I will do this: I will do a bit of research on both the dissent and majority opinions, and I will start a thread later next week on the subject. We shall see just how far out of your ass your opinions come.

 

[Liability]

Unfortunately, on this subject Scalia threw any judicial objectivity and discretion to the wind. * * * *

Absolute nonsense.

What Justice Scalia did (something Justice Stevens was unwilling to do) was to give the words of the Constitution their intended and actual and literal meaning and effect.

There is nothing "unobjective" about fidelity to the actual words of the Constitutuion.

The dishonest dissent was shameful and Justice Scalia exposed it. Shame on Justice Stevens and the other three dissenters.

But Bravo for Justice Scalia.

"Congress shall make no law ..."

Nevertheless, Congress did make such a law.

The Court, quite properly, set that law aside.

But I will do this: I will do a bit of research on both the dissent and majority opinions, and I will start a thread later next week on the subject. We shall see just how far out of your ass your opinions come.

In other words, your braying jackass comments so far have been hee-hawed without you having read the dissent and the majority and concurring opinions. Color me unsurprised.

Clearly your opinions are already out of your ass, you jackass.

 

[Liability]

Unfortunately, on this subject Scalia threw any judicial objectivity and discretion to the wind. * * * *

Absolute nonsense.

What Justice Scalia did (something Justice Stevens was unwilling to do) was to give the words of the Constitution their intended and actual and literal meaning and effect.

There is nothing "unobjective" about fidelity to the actual words of the Constitutuion.

The dishonest dissent was shameful and Justice Scalia exposed it. Shame on Justice Stevens and the other three dissenters.

But Bravo for Justice Scalia.

"Congress shall make no law ..."

Nevertheless, Congress did make such a law.

The Court, quite properly, set that law aside.

Madison, Hamilton and other Founding Fathers disagreed with each other here...yet you the oh-so-wise-douche-of-USMB, have the one true answer?

You can keep sidetracking the issue. It is what people of limited minds do.

There is room for disagreement on most everything, but when people like you speak about fidelity, I hear a forked tongue speaking shit to truth.

Holy shit! You are a font of wisdom. Not.

Of course some of the Founders and Framers disagreed with each other on a variety of topics, you jackass. Some were Federalists. Some were anti-Federalists, too, you douchebag.

I haven't sidetracked ANY issue, you imbecile. Unlike you, I have stayed on topic, in fact.

The thrust of the decision was clearly all about freedom of speech. Schmucks like you dwell on the almost incidental point: that the free speech arises in a context of "corporate speech." This is true, of course, but beside the point. The point is that the decision focused on the important main point: freedom of speech.

I speak of fidelity to one of the basic tenets of our Constitution, you stupid mutt. Freedom of speech was never intended just to permit you to pontificate. It entails allowing those with whom you disagree to speak, too.

Your dishonesty is legend. But, just so you know: that's not actually a good thing.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Absolute nonsense.

What Justice Scalia did (something Justice Stevens was unwilling to do) was to give the words of the Constitution their intended and actual and literal meaning and effect.

There is nothing "unobjective" about fidelity to the actual words of the Constitutuion.

The dishonest dissent was shameful and Justice Scalia exposed it. Shame on Justice Stevens and the other three dissenters.

But Bravo for Justice Scalia.

"Congress shall make no law ..."

Nevertheless, Congress did make such a law.

The Court, quite properly, set that law aside.

But I will do this: I will do a bit of research on both the dissent and majority opinions, and I will start a thread later next week on the subject. We shall see just how far out of your ass your opinions come.

In other words, your braying jackass comments so far have been hee-hawed without you having read the dissent and the majority and concurring opinions. Color me unsurprised.

Clearly your opinions are already out of your ass, you jackass.

Research implies more than some cursory examination by a dipshit like you.

but thanks (I guess) for the attentions. just don't get carried away and start mentioning that other thing you keep going back to. As I've said on many an occasion 'you are not my type'

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Absolute nonsense.

What Justice Scalia did (something Justice Stevens was unwilling to do) was to give the words of the Constitution their intended and actual and literal meaning and effect.

There is nothing "unobjective" about fidelity to the actual words of the Constitutuion.

The dishonest dissent was shameful and Justice Scalia exposed it. Shame on Justice Stevens and the other three dissenters.

But Bravo for Justice Scalia.

"Congress shall make no law ..."

Nevertheless, Congress did make such a law.

The Court, quite properly, set that law aside.

Madison, Hamilton and other Founding Fathers disagreed with each other here...yet you the oh-so-wise-douche-of-USMB, have the one true answer?

You can keep sidetracking the issue. It is what people of limited minds do.

There is room for disagreement on most everything, but when people like you speak about fidelity, I hear a forked tongue speaking shit to truth.

Holy shit! You are a font of wisdom. Not.

Of course some of the Founders and Framers disagreed with each other on a variety of topics, you jackass. Some were Federalists. Some were anti-Federalists, too, you douchebag.

I haven't sidetracked ANY issue, you imbecile. Unlike you, I have stayed on topic, in fact.

The thrust of the decision was clearly all about freedom of speech. Schmucks like you dwell on the almost incidental point: that the free speech arises in a context of "corporate speech." This is true, of course, but beside the point. The point is that the decision focused on the important main point: freedom of speech.

I speak of fidelity to one of the basic tenets of our Constitution, you stupid mutt. Freedom of speech was never intended just to permit you to pontificate. It entails allowing those with whom you disagree to speak, too.

Your dishonesty is legend. But, just so you know: that's not actually a good thing.

You have totally missed the points made here on numerous threads.

I posted where Madison and Hamilton themselves...disagreed with each other and themselves. Madison disagreed with himself on the eaxct meaning of his own words...as did Hamilton.

simpleton that you are, I had assumed you'd have understood the most simplest of facts

obviously not.

my bad

 

[Liability]

But I will do this: I will do a bit of research on both the dissent and majority opinions, and I will start a thread later next week on the subject. We shall see just how far out of your ass your opinions come.

In other words, your braying jackass comments so far have been hee-hawed without you having read the dissent and the majority and concurring opinions. Color me unsurprised.

Clearly your opinions are already out of your ass, you jackass.

Research implies more than some cursory examination by a dipshit like you.

but thanks (I guess) for the attentions. just don't get carried away and start mentioning that other thing you keep going back to. As I've said on many an occasion 'you are not my type'

Your massive dishonesty is akin to that of a few other trollish hacks on this Board.

Don't flatter yourself so much, Dainty. Nobody has any interest in the likes of you.

As for your ability to be honest or to engage in meaningful debate, you have already sealed the deal. You have nothing.

 

[Liability]

Madison, Hamilton and other Founding Fathers disagreed with each other here...yet you the oh-so-wise-douche-of-USMB, have the one true answer?

You can keep sidetracking the issue. It is what people of limited minds do.

There is room for disagreement on most everything, but when people like you speak about fidelity, I hear a forked tongue speaking shit to truth.

Holy shit! You are a font of wisdom. Not.

Of course some of the Founders and Framers disagreed with each other on a variety of topics, you jackass. Some were Federalists. Some were anti-Federalists, too, you douchebag.

I haven't sidetracked ANY issue, you imbecile. Unlike you, I have stayed on topic, in fact.

The thrust of the decision was clearly all about freedom of speech. Schmucks like you dwell on the almost incidental point: that the free speech arises in a context of "corporate speech." This is true, of course, but beside the point. The point is that the decision focused on the important main point: freedom of speech.

I speak of fidelity to one of the basic tenets of our Constitution, you stupid mutt. Freedom of speech was never intended just to permit you to pontificate. It entails allowing those with whom you disagree to speak, too.

Your dishonesty is legend. But, just so you know: that's not actually a good thing.

You have totally missed the points made here on numerous threads.

I posted where Madison and Hamilton themselves...disagreed with each other and themselves. Madison disagreed with himself on the eaxct meaning of his own words...as did Hamilton.

simpleton that you are, I had assumed you'd have understood the most simplest of facts

obviously not.

my bad

You post like you have two left feet and use your toes for typoing. Your gibberish is like listening to an insane asylum engaged in a farting contest, yet you pretend that others are at fault for not divining your hidden "meaning."

Forget it, Dainty. You suck at pretty much all things.

And your quibble, now, is of no interest.

Founders and Framers may disagree and folks can change their minds over time. Irrelvant.

The FACT is that the premier position was given to the rights guaranteed under the First Amendment for good reason. It was a point of utter urgency -- so much so in fact that the entire ratification of the Constitution was riding on the eventually to be submitted Bill of Rights.

The purpose of freedom of speech was deemed crucial to a Constitutional Republic where the States and the People were sovereign. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech meant what it said. NO law.

Imbeciles such as you somehow cannot grasp the glaringly obvious, however. It is you who has steadfastly, adamantly and ignorantly missed the point all along.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

In other words, your braying jackass comments so far have been hee-hawed without you having read the dissent and the majority and concurring opinions. Color me unsurprised.

Clearly your opinions are already out of your ass, you jackass.

Research implies more than some cursory examination by a dipshit like you.

but thanks (I guess) for the attentions. just don't get carried away and start mentioning that other thing you keep going back to. As I've said on many an occasion 'you are not my type'

Your massive dishonesty is akin to that of a few other trollish hacks on this Board.

Don't flatter yourself so much, Dainty. Nobody has any interest in the likes of you.

As for your ability to be honest or to engage in meaningful debate, you have already sealed the deal. You have nothing.

So you are calling IT massive?

gawd, you"re a treat.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Holy shit! You are a font of wisdom. Not.

Of course some of the Founders and Framers disagreed with each other on a variety of topics, you jackass. Some were Federalists. Some were anti-Federalists, too, you douchebag.

I haven't sidetracked ANY issue, you imbecile. Unlike you, I have stayed on topic, in fact.

The thrust of the decision was clearly all about freedom of speech. Schmucks like you dwell on the almost incidental point: that the free speech arises in a context of "corporate speech." This is true, of course, but beside the point. The point is that the decision focused on the important main point: freedom of speech.

I speak of fidelity to one of the basic tenets of our Constitution, you stupid mutt. Freedom of speech was never intended just to permit you to pontificate. It entails allowing those with whom you disagree to speak, too.

Your dishonesty is legend. But, just so you know: that's not actually a good thing.

You have totally missed the points made here on numerous threads.

I posted where Madison and Hamilton themselves...disagreed with each other and themselves. Madison disagreed with himself on the eaxct meaning of his own words...as did Hamilton.

simpleton that you are, I had assumed you'd have understood the most simplest of facts

obviously not.

my bad

You post like you have two left feet and use your toes for typoing. Your gibberish is like listening to an insane asylum engaged in a farting contest, yet you pretend that others are at fault for not divining your hidden "meaning."

Forget it, Dainty. You suck at pretty much all things.

And your quibble, now, is of no interest.

Founders and Framers may disagree and folks can change their minds over time. Irrelvant.

The FACT is that the premier position was given to the rights guaranteed under the First Amendment for good reason. It was a point of utter urgency -- so much so in fact that the entire ratification of the Constitution was riding on the eventually to be submitted Bill of Rights.

The purpose of freedom of speech was deemed crucial to a Constitutional Republic where the States and the People were sovereign. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech meant what it said. NO law.

Imbeciles such as you somehow cannot grasp the glaringly obvious, however. It is you who has steadfastly, adamantly and ignorantly missed the point all along.

Your lecture is amusing. Sophomoric, yet amusing.

No wonder you have such a fondness for reactionary speech and protest. You"re the true imbecile, my friend. That is without doubt.


;;;;

...

and is there anything more sophomoric than a hard on for a dead drug addict like Belushi?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

...

and is there anything more sophomoric than a hard on for a dead drug addict like Belushi?

 

[elvis]

...

and is there anything more sophomoric than a hard on for a dead drug addict like Belushi?

your hard-on for obama, maybe?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

...

and is there anything more sophomoric than a hard on for a dead drug addict like Belushi?

your hard-on for obama, maybe?

hey clueless fuck, I never voted for Obama.

 

[elvis]

and is there anything more sophomoric than a hard on for a dead drug addict like Belushi?

your hard-on for obama, maybe?

hey clueless fuck, I never voted for Obama.

Nader is even better. Why did you lie to us all, you deceitful little bastard?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

your hard-on for obama, maybe?

hey clueless fuck, I never voted for Obama.

Nader is even better. Why did you lie to us all, you deceitful little bastard?

Nader? What an asswipe. He was a great man way back in the day.When he was an advocate and not a politician.

Lie? Moi?

get a life

 

[Liability]

* * * *



No wonder you have such a fondness for reactionary speech and protest. You"re the true imbecile, my friend. That is without doubt.

All of your idiot pronouncements are open to significant doubt. This is because you are a rather retarded liar. Nothing worth seeing or reading when you post.

* * * *

and is there anything more sophomoric than a hard on for a dead drug addict like Belushi?

Your hard-ons are your business (albeit in all probability merely figments of your wishful thinking), Dainty.

Putting the image of the late liberal drug-addled comic in an avie does not imply sexual arousal. You are remarkably stupid, ya brainless simpleton.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

* * * *



No wonder you have such a fondness for reactionary speech and protest. You"re the true imbecile, my friend. That is without doubt.

All of your idiot pronouncements are open to significant doubt. This is because you are a rather retarded liar. Nothing worth seeing or reading when you post.

* * * *

and is there anything more sophomoric than a hard on for a dead drug addict like Belushi?

Your hard-ons are your business (albeit in all probability merely figments of your wishful thinking), Dainty.

Putting the image of the late liberal drug-addled comic in an avie does not imply sexual arousal. You are remarkably stupid, ya brainless simpleton.

Like most all your attempts at rational and intelligent discussion...your avatar is sophomoric.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

have to rethink this thread, but it is a great archie find

 

[rdean]

Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive and the prototype neocon, not an old line conservative.

Also, the democrats are just as big of willing slaves to the corporatized welfare/warfare/nanny/police state as are the republicans.

Despite all your shrieking bluster to the contrary, there's not a dime's worth of difference between the remocrats and depublicans, moonbat.

Why say something so full of bullshit? If Republicans and Democrats were the same, the Chinese and Russian funded US Chamber of Commerce would be giving to Republicans and Democrats the same instead of to Republicans 10 to 1 over Democrats.
Some want to believe they are so smart and see through all the BS by saying, "I know they are the same", when clearly, they don't know shit.