Curbing Judicial Activism

[Cecilie1200]

They are my original posts. I have posted on other discussion forums under several monikers including W.J. Wilczek, WJW, Wendell Phillips, Mr. Jaggers, Richard Savage, Graham Garner, G.R.A. Garner, H. Muir, and most frequently Nemo, which is Latin for “no one” that was the pseudonym for the lover of Lady Deadlock and the mysterious law writer in Charles Dickens novel Bleak House.

They most assuredly are NOT your "original posts", jackwad. We found the damned articles you're plagiarizing, and I sincerely doubt that they are yours.

Let me be clear: if I see another post from you quoting, word for word, another website under anyone else's name - whether you want to claim to be that person or not - without source attribution, I will report you to the board monitors for violating the rules. There aren't many things that make me resort to that, but plagiarism is one of them.

You will carry on your own conversations, or you will begone. Got it?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Also interesting our Nemo's hero fails to quote sources too.

Well, as we know, leftists are famous for sharing groupthink, and believing it's their own, original, independent thought. They never seem to question how they can all believe the same thing, expressed in the exact same words, and have it be independent.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Oh noes! The liberals are losing, enter Wry.

Stick a fork in it.

Someone call the ref and let him know the other side forfeits.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You will learn for yourselves the true source of your rights when you have need to enforce them. Unless you have some legal basis - some law, statute, or case authority - you will be without remedy or redress. Then you will see - in the light of personal experience - that what I told you about your rights was true.

Protecting my rights does not equal being the source of them. The legal basis is for the redress, not for the right itself.

Consider, for a moment, the scenario where I protect my own right to life by shooting and killing someone assaulting me. I have provided my own redress. By your logic, that would make me the originator of my right to life.

Or are you one of those leftists who thinks guns act independently? In which case, I guess Misters Smith & Wesson are the originators of my right to life.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If you stay within the law, you will have your rights. If you break the law, you will lose your rights.

Depends, if I appeal based on the law being unconstitutional and win, then no. The law is subject to rights.

Leftists also have a great deal of trouble understanding that there is something preceding the existence of the law, known as "morality". They have none themselves, so they get confused and assume that the law IS morality.

 

[Cecilie1200]

As you have opened the topic....

Sex between three people is a threesome...

Between two people, a twosome

Is that why some refer to you as handsome?

Is anyone surprised that PC defaults to a personal attack to avoid a direct answer? She is so full of herself and shit - but I repeat myself - that she won't honestly answer a simple question.

1. "...she won't honestly answer a simple question."

Isn't 'simple' the name you have monogrammed on your shirts?

But I do answer questions....in my way, on my time.




2. "....PC defaults to a personal attack...."

'Defaults' has such a careless, random ring to it.....don't you think?

I take a great deal of care as to how I express my opinions of you because I want to put as much vituperation in them as possible.




3. Now to explain why I do so:

I consider this my very own little "Karma Cafe".....there are no menus in the cafe.....but everyone gets what they deserve.

Consider yourself served.

And, Little Miss Karma is always wearing her stiletto heels when she kicks your butt.

We really need to get together and have coffee someday.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I can't even imagine how you could say such a thing Wry, given your abilities to do exactly what you suggest. Oh, and I was unaware you were gay. Not that it matters to me.

For the record, I've been married to the same person since 1974, and that person is female. We have two sons, neither has ever been arrested and both are employed FT and are taxpayers. Your effort to be an asshole is duly noted, you've succeeded.

I graduated from CAL, served in the US Navy Reserved honorably, and have an advance degree from San Francisco St. U. I retired as a LEO after 32 years of active service in two agencies and spent a good deal of my career as a manager. I retired at the end of 2005 and my retirement income is $128,500, which included lifetime medical. Both my wife and I receive SS bringing our annual income to more than an idiot like you will earn in your lifetime.

I bet that really pisses a loser like you off,.

What truly inspiring "record"!

It takes one up the mountain of inspiration, to the very pinnacle of optimism!


How very demoralizing to plummet down that mountain when one realizes how very little such experience has taught you.


You are an absolute affront to Winston Churchill, who famously said “If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.”


What twists and contortions you must have applied to avoid the lessons of experience....
I have no doubt that you have yet to realize what a fraud and failure Obama, the Kim Kardashian of politicians, is and was....




...... It is as though changing your mind to accommodate the facts would be an affront to Liberalism. Your motto: 'Onward rather than correct!.'

 

[NYcarbineer]

In your opinion, was the Hobby Lobby case decided correctly?

Consider the following.

The decision in question states that religious folks do not have to participate, against their conscience, in providing a method that can be abortive.


Imagine the reverse scenario: a court that decided that an employer had the right to demand that his employees read the Bible, as long as he paid for it.


Would you agree to such a decision?

Hobby Lobby was never required to provide an abortive birth control method. They were only required to provide the means to obtain it, which Hobby Lobby has already proven they were willing to do when they began providing employees with paychecks,

which are also a means of obtaining abortive birth control, not to mention abortions themselves.

Therefore Hobby Lobby had no legitimate religious objection.

 

[Nemo]

The right of self-defense exists only to the extent allowed by law, as many convicted of manslaughter for defending themselves have learned to their detriment.

 

[saveliberty]

Hobby Lobby was never required to provide an abortive birth control method. They were only required to provide the means to obtain it, which Hobby Lobby has already proven they were willing to do when they began providing employees with paychecks,

which are also a means of obtaining abortive birth control, not to mention abortions themselves.

Therefore Hobby Lobby had no legitimate religious objection.

What an ignorant post. So if an employer pays their employees? Really? If you pay them you are some how supporting their actions with the money they earn? Alcoholics and drug users are condoned by any company because that company paid them? We need to put company owners into prison, if an employee bought a gun and killed someone? One of the worst cases of logic I've ever seen here.

 

[saveliberty]

The right of self-defense exists only to the extent allowed by law, as many convicted of manslaughter for defending themselves have learned to their detriment.

Your rights always come into conflict when you impose them on others. Taking a life is a pretty good example of imposing your rights on others. The right was there already, it is defined by law after the right's existence.

 

[Nemo]

No. The origin of the right of self-defense is at common law. Rights do not exist independent of the law.

 

[saveliberty]

No. The origin of the right of self-defense is at common law. Rights do not exist independent of the law.

Only in the mind of a modern liberal. It is laughable to suggest prior to common law people stood around dying because they didn't defend themselves.

 

[Nemo]

My views about the law, in particular, are very, very conservative. I do not subscribe to liberal doctrines; my views are rule oriented. As I told you before, all rights exist only by law; and without the law, we have no rights. Without law, there is anarchy, which is antithetical to the very existence of rights. Rights can only exist within the structure of organized society subject to the rule of law. In this, it must be admitted that there can be no society without the law; it is the very fabric of social structure. It is, like the air we breathe, pervasive and essential, affecting every aspect of human relationships and endeavors. Beyond this lies only the uncertainty of uncivilized life where there is no society, where every man is a law unto himself and “kraft macht recht” (“might makes right” and life, as Hobbes put it, is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (1651). Such rights are nothing more than a scrambling possession that would be unlikely to last beyond the first to challenge the claim by force. The law is the only means by which real rights may be secured.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Hobby Lobby was never required to provide an abortive birth control method. They were only required to provide the means to obtain it, which Hobby Lobby has already proven they were willing to do when they began providing employees with paychecks,

which are also a means of obtaining abortive birth control, not to mention abortions themselves.

Therefore Hobby Lobby had no legitimate religious objection.

What an ignorant post. So if an employer pays their employees? Really? If you pay them you are some how supporting their actions with the money they earn? Alcoholics and drug users are condoned by any company because that company paid them? We need to put company owners into prison, if an employee bought a gun and killed someone? One of the worst cases of logic I've ever seen here.

A paycheck is a piece of paper that has a monetary value that can be used to purchase goods and services.

An insurance policy is a piece of paper that has a monetary value that can be use to purchase goods and services.

It is absurd to argue that you cannot abide giving someone the latter piece of paper because it can purchase birth control,

when you happily give someone the former piece of paper, which can also be used to purchase birth control.

 

[saveliberty]

My views about the law, in particular, are very, very conservative. I do not subscribe to liberal doctrines; my views are rule oriented. As I told you before, all rights exist only by law; and without the law, we have no rights. Without law, there is anarchy, which is antithetical to the very existence of rights. Rights can only exist within the structure of organized society subject to the rule of law. In this, it must be admitted that there can be no society without the law; it is the very fabric of social structure. It is, like the air we breathe, pervasive and essential, affecting every aspect of human relationships and endeavors. Beyond this lies only the uncertainty of uncivilized life where there is no society, where every man is a law unto himself and “kraft macht recht” (“might makes right”); and life, as Hobbes put it, is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (1651). Such rights are nothing more than a scrambling possession that would be unlikely to last beyond the first to challenge the claim by force. The law is the only means by which real rights may be secured.

You certainly do subscribe to a liberal view of law. Your Prof. Tribe is one of the foremost liberal Constitutionalists in existence today. You have been indoctrinated to the core. Again, rights have existed long before a law was written.

 

[saveliberty]

Hobby Lobby was never required to provide an abortive birth control method. They were only required to provide the means to obtain it, which Hobby Lobby has already proven they were willing to do when they began providing employees with paychecks,

which are also a means of obtaining abortive birth control, not to mention abortions themselves.

Therefore Hobby Lobby had no legitimate religious objection.

What an ignorant post. So if an employer pays their employees? Really? If you pay them you are some how supporting their actions with the money they earn? Alcoholics and drug users are condoned by any company because that company paid them? We need to put company owners into prison, if an employee bought a gun and killed someone? One of the worst cases of logic I've ever seen here.

A paycheck is a piece of paper that has a monetary value that can be used to purchase goods and services.

An insurance policy is a piece of paper that has a monetary value that can be use to purchase goods and services.

It is absurd to argue that you cannot abide giving someone the latter piece of paper because it can purchase birth control,

when you happily give someone the former piece of paper, which can also be used to purchase birth control.

Restating the absurd does not make it more true or meaningful.