Elena Kagan to be nominated for supreme court

[DiamondDave]

Don't knucklehead like DiamondDave, please, saveliberty. Jillian has explained far more patiently than I would how the system works. Your interpretation contravenes American history, judicial as well as political.

Still waiting for any citation of your claimed power of the judiciary, there jokey... you know... your INITIAL claim that you never backed up... while you ask others to prove the negative against your unsubstantiated claim

 

[mudwhistle]

Elena Kagan to save the day!!!!

 

[Zona]

Why does Obama have this thing for ugly dykes? Yech. WHo wants to see her fat ugly ass in black robes?

Is that why they have the blonde bimbo robots on Fox?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Don't knucklehead like DiamondDave, please, saveliberty. Jillian has explained far more patiently than I would how the system works. Your interpretation contravenes American history, judicial as well as political.

Still waiting for any citation of your claimed power of the judiciary, there jokey... you know... your INITIAL claim that you never backed up... while you ask others to prove the negative against your unsubstantiated claim

You made the original claim, and then wanted me to refute it.

Sorry, little davy, that is not how disputation works.

You fail again.

 

[mudwhistle]

Why does Obama have this thing for ugly dykes? Yech. WHo wants to see her fat ugly ass in black robes?

Is that why they have the blonde bimbo robots on Fox?

I guess that's because of the colors. They look better on TV.

It does seem like that prefer blondes.

 

[Cal]

Elena Kagan to save the day!!!!

I sure hope that was satirical.
All jokes aside, It's sad when one has to resort to using someone who can't help their condition to prove a point. Typical Conservative.

 

[mudwhistle]

Elena Kagan to save the day!!!!

I sure hope that was satirical.
All jokes aside, It's sad when one has to resort to using someone who can't help their condition to prove a point. Typical Conservative.

I noticed the resemblance....and yes it was satirical.

You must have been the brightest in your class.

 

[DiamondDave]

Don't knucklehead like DiamondDave, please, saveliberty. Jillian has explained far more patiently than I would how the system works. Your interpretation contravenes American history, judicial as well as political.

Still waiting for any citation of your claimed power of the judiciary, there jokey... you know... your INITIAL claim that you never backed up... while you ask others to prove the negative against your unsubstantiated claim

You made the original claim, and then wanted me to refute it.

Sorry, little davy, that is not how disputation works.

You fail again.

Me... you want me to show you your ORIGINAL POST BEFORE EVEN MY FIRST POST IN THIS THREAD?? God, you are one ignorant little bitch

YOU MADE THE CLAIM OF A SUPPOSED POWER/JOB of the judiciary... you were asked to back up your claim with citation from the constitution or written law that supports your claim.. you have not done so.... All you have tried to do is to claim that judicial review equates to the judiciary being able to grant themselves power, without review or amendment, upon whim.... this is inherently false

Keep avoiding, bitch

 

[saveliberty]

Don't knucklehead like DiamondDave, please, saveliberty. Jillian has explained far more patiently than I would how the system works. Your interpretation contravenes American history, judicial as well as political.

Had to borrow this from another post, because you are and always will be on ignore Jake. Jillian is wrong and I clearly showed that. You add nothing to this board except worthless chatter.

 

[jillian]

Had to borrow this from another post, because you are and always will be on ignore Jake. Jillian is wrong and I clearly showed that. You add nothing to this board except worthless chatter.

no. i'm not wrong. and while you are entitled to your opinion, it isn't consistent with constitutional construction. what i would also point out is that great scholars have discussed these issues for over two hundred years. perhaps it would be better to look at their body of work, at least on select issues like how one interprets the constitution, than to make blanket statements.

 

[saveliberty]

Had to borrow this from another post, because you are and always will be on ignore Jake. Jillian is wrong and I clearly showed that. You add nothing to this board except worthless chatter.

no. i'm not wrong. and while you are entitled to your opinion, it isn't consistent with constitutional construction. what i would also point out is that great scholars have discussed these issues for over two hundred years. perhaps it would be better to look at their body of work, at least on select issues like how one interprets the constitution, than to make blanket statements.

One of the first things you learn in law school is to give yourself wiggle room within the Constitution. Otherwise, you are going to lose a lot of cases sticking with the framework. Then they teach you to lie convincingly.

 

[jillian]

Had to borrow this from another post, because you are and always will be on ignore Jake. Jillian is wrong and I clearly showed that. You add nothing to this board except worthless chatter.

no. i'm not wrong. and while you are entitled to your opinion, it isn't consistent with constitutional construction. what i would also point out is that great scholars have discussed these issues for over two hundred years. perhaps it would be better to look at their body of work, at least on select issues like how one interprets the constitution, than to make blanket statements.

One of the first things you learn in law school is to give yourself wiggle room within the Constitution. Otherwise, you are going to lose a lot of cases sticking with the framework. Then they teach you to lie convincingly.

is that what you really think they teach you? sad... and wrong.

i think you underestimate the fact that most of us really love the law and don't see it the way you portray it at all. (not that there aren't lowlives, but every field has those).

 

[JBeukema]

Why Liberals Don't Trust Kagan - Politics - The Atlantic

 

[mudwhistle]

Had to borrow this from another post, because you are and always will be on ignore Jake. Jillian is wrong and I clearly showed that. You add nothing to this board except worthless chatter.

no. i'm not wrong. and while you are entitled to your opinion, it isn't consistent with constitutional construction. what i would also point out is that great scholars have discussed these issues for over two hundred years. perhaps it would be better to look at their body of work, at least on select issues like how one interprets the constitution, than to make blanket statements.

Course folks like Obama don't like the way the constitution is currently being interpreted.

He believes in "Social Justice" over the rule of law.

In other words...he wants the constitution to favor one group over another.

This is the primary reason I can't support anyone he nominates.

If some day he wakes up and decides that equality and liberty for all races and economic classes should be the law of the land I may change my mind.

However I doubt he will ever think that way.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Don't knucklehead like DiamondDave, please, saveliberty. Jillian has explained far more patiently than I would how the system works. Your interpretation contravenes American history, judicial as well as political.

Had to borrow this from another post, because you are and always will be on ignore Jake. Jillian is wrong and I clearly showed that. You add nothing to this board except worthless chatter.

You lose any time you try to argue sensibly, saveliberty, so this will help you:

Purdue OWL

 

[JakeStarkey]

whistle lives in a parasitic universe of far right conloons living off the rest of the normal universe.

 

[saveliberty]

no. i'm not wrong. and while you are entitled to your opinion, it isn't consistent with constitutional construction. what i would also point out is that great scholars have discussed these issues for over two hundred years. perhaps it would be better to look at their body of work, at least on select issues like how one interprets the constitution, than to make blanket statements.

One of the first things you learn in law school is to give yourself wiggle room within the Constitution. Otherwise, you are going to lose a lot of cases sticking with the framework. Then they teach you to lie convincingly.

is that what you really think they teach you? sad... and wrong.

i think you underestimate the fact that most of us really love the law and don't see it the way you portray it at all. (not that there aren't lowlives, but every field has those).

Your honor, I present exhibit A. The O.J. Simpson trial.

 

[JakeStarkey]

One of the first things you learn in law school is to give yourself wiggle room within the Constitution. Otherwise, you are going to lose a lot of cases sticking with the framework. Then they teach you to lie convincingly.

is that what you really think they teach you? sad... and wrong.

i think you underestimate the fact that most of us really love the law and don't see it the way you portray it at all. (not that there aren't lowlives, but every field has those).

Your honor, I present exhibit A. The O.J. Simpson trial.

OK, maybe Purdue OWL Purdue OWL will not help you if you remain willfully stupid. Stupidity is the unwillingness to learn, and you, save liberty, show that in full.

 

[mudwhistle]

whistle lives in a parasitic universe of far right conloons living off the rest of the normal universe.

It's called "The Real World"....not that fake world you and Obama seem to live in.

 

[JakeStarkey]

whistle lives in a parasitic universe of far right conloons living off the rest of the normal universe.

It's called "The Real World"....not that fake world you and Obama seem to live in.

so speaketh all conloon parasites.