Bush Called Judges that disagreed with him "harmful to democracy"

[Listening]

Why do these dumbasses hate healthcare? It's the difference between living and bankruptcy. Besides, everyone knows most right wingers don't have health care anyway. They have "Medicare".

I have a 55 year old conservative friend and his sickly wife and they are bending him over on healthcare costs. One moment he's hoping for Obamacare for himself and the next he's bragging/gloating that the Supreme's are going to overturn it.

And his wife just got approved for Disability. What a joke. And he would vote for Romney who would do away with that safety net.

And if it gets overturned, or if the GOP get their way, he and his wife will go bankrupt because of healthcare. And his wife has pre existing conditions.

Why? Abortion. He's one of those Catholic fools who votes against his own financial interests because of social wedge issues like abortion.

And.........

What is the issue with people having a POV.

That it does not agree with yours ?

 

[sealybobo]

Actually, as the link to fucking idiot Randi Rhode's website makes clear, what President Bush SAID was that THOSE JUDGES who don't act in accordance with the Constitution are a threat to democracy. Specifically, those who don't interpret laws but who instead legislate laws from the bench represent a threat to democracy.

President Bush was clearly correct.

And, of course, he said NOTHING about judges who merely "disagreed" with him.

Yep. The OP intentionally lied. Now there's something you see every day.

Citizens United is the definition of legislationg from the bench.

So was it when they lowered the settlement money that the victims of the Exxon Valdez got. How dare they? They serve the corporations, not we the people. This is why Obama must win in November and we can never have a Republican president until the Supreme Court is not hyjacked by Roberts. And Clarence Thomas needs to step down. Scalia just needs to have a heart attack. Alito needs to go too.

 

[sealybobo]

Waaaaah! Bush Bush Bush!

Buuuush!


Bush is Fucking gone! He was nothing to brag about! FUCK!

Deal with NOW! Deal with Obama's mistakes, deal with what Obama says!

FUCK BUSH!

Obama didn't make a mistake. I'm meerly pointing out that past presidents have called out the Supreme Court and there wasn't this over reaction.

Like those right wing Judges treating Obama like a school kid. Giving him busy work while he's already busy. Asking him for a 3 page report, single space, blablabla. They can fuck off. You too.

 

[Liability]

Actually, as the link to fucking idiot Randi Rhode's website makes clear, what President Bush SAID was that THOSE JUDGES who don't act in accordance with the Constitution are a threat to democracy. Specifically, those who don't interpret laws but who instead legislate laws from the bench represent a threat to democracy.

President Bush was clearly correct.

And, of course, he said NOTHING about judges who merely "disagreed" with him.

Yep. The OP intentionally lied. Now there's something you see every day.

Citizens United is the definition of legislationg from the bench.

No. It is not. The claim is just you making silly arguments with zero ability to support them. Typical of you.

So was it when they lowered the settlement money that the victims of the Exxon Valdez got. How dare they? They serve the corporations, not we the people. This is why Obama must win in November and we can never have a Republican president until the Supreme Court is not hyjacked by Roberts. And Clarence Thomas needs to step down. Scalia just needs to have a heart attack. Alito needs to go too.

There might be a hint of an "idea" buried in the random collection of keystrokes you call a post, but it's not clear.

Courts DO occasionally disapprove settlements. Why they do so, when they do, or by how much, is not always pleasing to one side or the other. But your unhappiness with a ruling is not any part of the definition of legislating from the bench or activism.

The balance of your idiot spew is just you ranting against judges whose superior intellect stymies you and your dopey liberal agenda.

Need tissue?

 

[sealybobo]

Did Bush threaten the Supreme Court and challenge their authority in the throes of a major decision?


Edit: I watched the video. The OP is lying.


Imagine that.

Show us Obama threatened the Supreme Court or challanged their authority.

Sniperfire is lying.

 

[Liability]

Did Bush threaten the Supreme Court and challenge their authority in the throes of a major decision?


Edit: I watched the video. The OP is lying.


Imagine that.

Show us Obama threatened the Supreme Court or challanged their authority.

Sniperfire is lying.

Even if the claim is hyperbole (i.e., in that President Obama's words do not constitute a threat in and of themselves), do you imagine that justifies your deliberate lie in your OP?

Silly Bozo, this is one of the many many reasons that you have all the credibility of TDM.

 

[hjmick]

Waaaaah! Bush Bush Bush!

Buuuush!


Bush is Fucking gone! He was nothing to brag about! FUCK!

Deal with NOW! Deal with Obama's mistakes, deal with what Obama says!

FUCK BUSH!

Obama didn't make a mistake. I'm meerly pointing out that past presidents have called out the Supreme Court and there wasn't this over reaction.

Like those right wing Judges treating Obama like a school kid. Giving him busy work while he's already busy. Asking him for a 3 page report, single space, blablabla. They can fuck off. You too.

Oh Christ, they didn't ask Obama for shit, they asked the DOJ, Eric fucking Holder, not Obama. And rightfully so. If you get Obama's balls off of your chin long enough to open your eyes you might be able to take an honest look at things.

Fuck off indeed. Wouldn't have expe t3ed that from you...

 

[sealybobo]

Actually, as the link to fucking idiot Randi Rhode's website makes clear, what President Bush SAID was that THOSE JUDGES who don't act in accordance with the Constitution are a threat to democracy. Specifically, those who don't interpret laws but who instead legislate laws from the bench represent a threat to democracy.

President Bush was clearly correct.

And, of course, he said NOTHING about judges who merely "disagreed" with him.

Yep. The OP intentionally lied. Now there's something you see every day.

Citizens United is the definition of legislationg from the bench.

No. It is not. The claim is just you making silly arguments with zero ability to support them. Typical of you.

So was it when they lowered the settlement money that the victims of the Exxon Valdez got. How dare they? They serve the corporations, not we the people. This is why Obama must win in November and we can never have a Republican president until the Supreme Court is not hyjacked by Roberts. And Clarence Thomas needs to step down. Scalia just needs to have a heart attack. Alito needs to go too.

There might be a hint of an "idea" buried in the random collection of keystrokes you call a post, but it's not clear.

Courts DO occasionally disapprove settlements. Why they do so, when they do, or by how much, is not always pleasing to one side or the other. But your unhappiness with a ruling is not any part of the definition of legislating from the bench or activism.

The balance of your idiot spew is just you ranting against judges whose superior intellect stymies you and your dopey liberal agenda.

Need tissue?

In a ruling today the SCOTUS relieved Exxon of over $2 billion dollars in punitive damages it had been ordered to pay to victims as a result of the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster.

Writing for the court, Justice Souter said that punitive damages may not exceed what the company already paid to compensate victims for economic losses, and that penalties should be “reasonably predictable” in severity.

Of course, for Alaskans who lost their property, businesses, livelihoods and health this ruling still awards them about $15,000 per person. That seems a fair compensation, right? WRONG!!!

My issue is with the Supreme Court deciding to engage in lawmaking and create legislation rather than interpret it.

To rule that “punitive damages may not exceed what the company already paid to compensate victims for economic losses” is to in-fact create a parameter of law… which is supposed to be what Congress, our legislative branch does.

The courts, our judicial branch of government, exist only to enforce the legislation enacted by congress, not add to it.

This has been a long problem with lower courts for years, and thankfully our system allows for taking a lower court ruling to a higher court for review, and the obvious and blatant offenses of legislating from the bench ultimately get overturned.

However, we have no higher court than SCOTUS, which is why legislating from the bench on their part is so dangerous.

Many from the right have long wanted caps on damages awards for a wide variety of cases, and this ruling today hands that to them on a silver platter.

Darn Activist Judges Who Legislate from the Bench | Political Blogs, News & Views

 

[sealybobo]

Did Bush threaten the Supreme Court and challenge their authority in the throes of a major decision?


Edit: I watched the video. The OP is lying.


Imagine that.

Show us Obama threatened the Supreme Court or challanged their authority.

Sniperfire is lying.

Even if the claim is hyperbole (i.e., in that President Obama's words do not constitute a threat in and of themselves), do you imagine that justifies your deliberate lie in your OP?

Silly Bozo, this is one of the many many reasons that you have all the credibility of TDM.

So you guys can spin your facts and claim that Obama threatened the Supremes or challanged their authority, but we can't word what Bush did the way we like?

It seems you guys don't like it when the left uses your own tactics against you.

This is classic Fox News. You see the headlines at the bottom of the screen. "Did Obama threaten the Supreme Court and challange their authority?"

And you claim its ok because you put the question mark at the end.

Hypocrites.

Fact is, Bush was talking about judges that disagreed with him and he did say they were harmful to democracy. And he was wrong because Bush's version of what is and isn't constitutional is wack.

P.S. Ron Paul and Romney don't exactly agree on what is and isn't constitutional. I want you to explain in detail which kind of Republican you are. If you are a Ron Paul Republican, please explain the difference between you and Romney and where Romney is wrong. Single space and it must be at least three pages long.

 

[Liability]

Show us Obama threatened the Supreme Court or challanged their authority.

Sniperfire is lying.

Even if the claim is hyperbole (i.e., in that President Obama's words do not constitute a threat in and of themselves), do you imagine that justifies your deliberate lie in your OP?

Silly Bozo, this is one of the many many reasons that you have all the credibility of TDM.

So you guys can spin your facts and claim that Obama threatened the Supremes or challanged their authority, but we can't word what Bush did the way we like?

It seems you guys don't like it when the left uses your own tactics against you.

This is classic Fox News. You see the headlines at the bottom of the screen. "Did Obama threaten the Supreme Court and challange their authority?"

And you claim its ok because you put the question mark at the end.

Hypocrites.

Fact is, Bush was talking about judges that disagreed with him and he did say they were harmful to democracy. And he was wrong because Bush's version of what is and isn't constitutional is wack.

P.S. Ron Paul and Romney don't exactly agree on what is and isn't constitutional. I want you to explain in detail which kind of Republican you are. If you are a Ron Paul Republican, please explain the difference between you and Romney and where Romney is wrong. Single space and it must be at least three pages long.

Just come right out and admit that you are a liar. (And it looks like you have.)

Nothing else from a lowlife moron like you is really needed.

 

[bodecea]

Did Bush threaten the Supreme Court and challenge their authority in the throes of a major decision?


Edit: I watched the video. The OP is lying.


Imagine that.

Who threatened the Supreme Court? Please link said "threat".

 

[sealybobo]

Even if the claim is hyperbole (i.e., in that President Obama's words do not constitute a threat in and of themselves), do you imagine that justifies your deliberate lie in your OP?

Silly Bozo, this is one of the many many reasons that you have all the credibility of TDM.

So you guys can spin your facts and claim that Obama threatened the Supremes or challanged their authority, but we can't word what Bush did the way we like?

It seems you guys don't like it when the left uses your own tactics against you.

This is classic Fox News. You see the headlines at the bottom of the screen. "Did Obama threaten the Supreme Court and challange their authority?"

And you claim its ok because you put the question mark at the end.

Hypocrites.

Fact is, Bush was talking about judges that disagreed with him and he did say they were harmful to democracy. And he was wrong because Bush's version of what is and isn't constitutional is wack.

P.S. Ron Paul and Romney don't exactly agree on what is and isn't constitutional. I want you to explain in detail which kind of Republican you are. If you are a Ron Paul Republican, please explain the difference between you and Romney and where Romney is wrong. Single space and it must be at least three pages long.

Just come right out and admit that you are a liar. (And it looks like you have.)

Nothing else from a lowlife moron like you is really needed.

Do a search for a thread I started called 7 types of Republican Idiots. Read the 7 types and tell me which one you fall under. Details. Single Space and at least 3 pages long please.

 

[Liability]

Did Bush threaten the Supreme Court and challenge their authority in the throes of a major decision?


Edit: I watched the video. The OP is lying.


Imagine that.

Who threatened the Supreme Court? Please link said "threat".

Marvel as bodecea ploddingly sidesteps the very post she quotes.

Forget the "threat" mumbo jumbo. Call it hyperbole or speculation and dismiss it. Have a blast.

Now that your deflection effort is cast aside, how about addressing the glaring and deliberate dishonesty of the OP?

 

[Liability]

So you guys can spin your facts and claim that Obama threatened the Supremes or challanged their authority, but we can't word what Bush did the way we like?

It seems you guys don't like it when the left uses your own tactics against you.

This is classic Fox News. You see the headlines at the bottom of the screen. "Did Obama threaten the Supreme Court and challange their authority?"

And you claim its ok because you put the question mark at the end.

Hypocrites.

Fact is, Bush was talking about judges that disagreed with him and he did say they were harmful to democracy. And he was wrong because Bush's version of what is and isn't constitutional is wack.

P.S. Ron Paul and Romney don't exactly agree on what is and isn't constitutional. I want you to explain in detail which kind of Republican you are. If you are a Ron Paul Republican, please explain the difference between you and Romney and where Romney is wrong. Single space and it must be at least three pages long.

Just come right out and admit that you are a liar. (And it looks like you have.)

Nothing else from a lowlife moron like you is really needed.

Do a search for a thread I started called 7 types of Republican Idiots. Read the 7 types and tell me which one you fall under. Details. Single Space and at least 3 pages long please.

I already dismissed your childish spew on that particular pointless, silly bozo.

Why did you choose to deliberately lie in your OP?

 

[sealybobo]

Did Bush threaten the Supreme Court and challenge their authority in the throes of a major decision?


Edit: I watched the video. The OP is lying.


Imagine that.

Who threatened the Supreme Court? Please link said "threat".

And I'm the liar he says?

 

[sealybobo]

Just come right out and admit that you are a liar. (And it looks like you have.)

Nothing else from a lowlife moron like you is really needed.

Do a search for a thread I started called 7 types of Republican Idiots. Read the 7 types and tell me which one you fall under. Details. Single Space and at least 3 pages long please.

I already dismissed your childish spew on that particular pointless, silly bozo.

Why did you choose to deliberately lie in your OP?

No more a lie than what you guys are spewing about what Obama said. Actually, less of a lie. That is what Bush was saying. Judges that disagree with him are harmful to democracy. But Obama didn't say what you guys are claiming. So you are the liar. I interpreted what Bush meant and I think I'm spot on. You however are wrong about your claim that Obama threatened the authority of the court. So ask yourself, why is your side lying?

Can you guys dish it out but not take it? Turn about fair play? Reminds me of when the GOP took Obama's words out of context and ran a commercial but then cried when we did it back to Romney. Remember? Little whiny bitches.

 

[Liability]

Do a search for a thread I started called 7 types of Republican Idiots. Read the 7 types and tell me which one you fall under. Details. Single Space and at least 3 pages long please.

I already dismissed your childish spew on that particular pointless, silly bozo.

Why did you choose to deliberately lie in your OP?

No more a lie than what you guys are spewing about what Obama said. Actually, less of a lie. That is what Bush was saying. Judges that disagree with him are harmful to democracy. But Obama didn't say what you guys are claiming. So you are the liar. I interpreted what Bush meant and I think I'm spot on. You however are wrong about your claim that Obama threatened the authority of the court. So ask yourself, why is your side lying?

Can you guys dish it out but not take it? Turn about fair play? Reminds me of when the GOP took Obama's words out of context and ran a commercial but then cried when we did it back to Romney. Remember? Little whiny bitches.

YOU are such a pitiable excuse for a member of the Board here, that you compound your easily refuted lies by lying all the more.

President Bush never said, suggested or implied that by virtue of disagreeing with him a judge was dangerous to democracy. Lying on TOP of your lies doesn't convert them into truth, you fucking simpleton piece of shit.

And the PROPER rejoinder to a lie is to expose it and disprove it. It is NOT to engage in lies all on your own. You utterly worthless cretin.

And I have not lied about President Obama at all. I DO believe that he is laying the foundation for an orchestrated attack on the Court. But I also have said -- bluntly -- that nothing he has actually SAID so far constitutes a threat standing alone.

Too bad you don't have a scintilla of honesty or integrity, silly bozo.

 

[Vel]

Waaaaah! Bush Bush Bush!

Buuuush!


Bush is Fucking gone! He was nothing to brag about! FUCK!

Deal with NOW! Deal with Obama's mistakes, deal with what Obama says!

FUCK BUSH!

Obama didn't make a mistake. I'm meerly pointing out that past presidents have called out the Supreme Court and there wasn't this over reaction.

Like those right wing Judges treating Obama like a school kid. Giving him busy work while he's already busy. Asking him for a 3 page report, single space, blablabla. They can fuck off. You too.

If he acts like a child, why would you be surprised at someone treating his as one?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why do these dumbasses hate healthcare? It's the difference between living and bankruptcy. Besides, everyone knows most right wingers don't have health care anyway. They have "Medicare".

If you are not alive you are bankrupt?

FYI, Medicare is not healthcare.

 

[sealybobo]

I already dismissed your childish spew on that particular pointless, silly bozo.

Why did you choose to deliberately lie in your OP?

No more a lie than what you guys are spewing about what Obama said. Actually, less of a lie. That is what Bush was saying. Judges that disagree with him are harmful to democracy. But Obama didn't say what you guys are claiming. So you are the liar. I interpreted what Bush meant and I think I'm spot on. You however are wrong about your claim that Obama threatened the authority of the court. So ask yourself, why is your side lying?

Can you guys dish it out but not take it? Turn about fair play? Reminds me of when the GOP took Obama's words out of context and ran a commercial but then cried when we did it back to Romney. Remember? Little whiny bitches.

YOU are such a pitiable excuse for a member of the Board here, that you compound your easily refuted lies by lying all the more.

President Bush never said, suggested or implied that by virtue of disagreeing with him a judge was dangerous to democracy. Lying on TOP of your lies doesn't convert them into truth, you fucking simpleton piece of shit.

And the PROPER rejoinder to a lie is to expose it and disprove it. It is NOT to engage in lies all on your own. You utterly worthless cretin.

And I have not lied about President Obama at all. I DO believe that he is laying the foundation for an orchestrated attack on the Court. But I also have said -- bluntly -- that nothing he has actually SAID so far constitutes a threat standing alone.

Too bad you don't have a scintilla of honesty or integrity, silly bozo.

Just as long as you also get this mad at Romney when he lies.