Exactly How “Supreme”???

[PoliticalChic]

….as it applies to the question of abortion….or, Pro-Lifers: don’t count on the court.


There are several misapprehensions about the Supreme Court, and anyone serious about more than their personal income and outgo should be aware of them.



1.The Supreme Court is not an arbiter of morality, righteousness, or rectitude. It was, from it’s beginning, based on theft and misappropriation of power. The chief thief, John Marshall was appointed Chief Justice in 1801, and he consistently tried to reduce any limits on federal power. Case in point, in the 1821 decision in Cohens v. Virginia, he found that the 11th amendment only banned suits against states that were initiated in federal courts.

Nonsense: this was not the intent of the amendment, but rather an intent to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts and the federal government.





2. The Founders did not intend for all to bend knee and neck to any court. The Constitution is the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by. The Founders knew that, by man's nature, aggrandizement would always be sought; this included the courts. So, March 4, 1794, Congress passed the 11th amendment:
"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."

You see, in 1792, Virginia had refused to respond to the Court at all (Grayson, et. al. v. Virginia) (Page 26 of 44) - The Impact of State Sovereign Immunity: A Case Study authored by Shortell, Christopher.




One of the ploys used is found in the word ‘interpret.’ How oblivious must one be not to notice that the Constitution, the real ‘supreme,’ is written in the lingua franca of this nation…English. That means any…even government school grads can ‘interpret’ what it means.
Don’t be fooled into believing that judges have some special power or insight in terms of the English language.





3. And speaking of power…..don’t be fooled into imagining that the Constitution, the law of the land, requires following the dictates of the Supreme Court. It doesn’t.
No elected official has to follow their order.

These understood that:

“Jefferson: to “consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

Jackson: “The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both.”

Lincoln: “If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”

Franklin Roosevelt: Proposed speech stating that if the Supreme Court should invalidate a certain New Deal measure, he would not “stand idly by and... permit the decision of the Supreme Court to be carried through to its logical inescapable conclusion.” Quoted in Kathleen M. Sullivan et al., “Constitutional Law,” pg. 20– 24 (15 ed., 2004).




And the motivation for this thread is the Supreme Court’s view on abortion…..getting to that next.

 

[BULLDOG]

So now you want to eliminate the Supreme Court. You're a real piece of work, aren't you?

 

[PoliticalChic]

They ain’t all that ‘supreme!’



4. Every citizen of this nation has the very same right to make moral judgments as do the Justice of the Supreme Court. They have no special acumen in that area.
Judges are no more equipped to make said call than any sentient individual. Nazi Germany had judges, too.

To be more clear, if you are asked ‘why’ you have a particular moral opinion, e.g., on abortion, and you have no answer outside of your party declared so, then you are not that cognizant individual and not an asset to America.

You’re pretty much a dunce.




5.To cut to the chase, I offer this as the basis for moral decisions, particularly on abortion: human being are separate and distinct from any other life on the planet, and the importance of human life should be held as the principle for moral decisions.

Hence, if you claim that the fetus is not human, you have neither a moral nor a science-based opinion….here is just such a dunce….

“It's not a child, and it's not alive. To refer to a zygote or a fetus….”
Pro-abortion? Why?


“…pretend that those who are not yet living, are alive and have rights.”
"My Body, My Choice": The Worst Abortion Talking Points


“…a zygote is not a human being.”
"My Body, My Choice": The Worst Abortion Talking Points


“ It's not a "human being", until it's sentient, aware, and able to breathe on its own. “
Which should have first priority: The woman, the fertilized egg, or the fetus?


….well, science disagrees with such an appraisal, but, imbeciles have a right to an opinion, no matter how wrong.





But, there are other bases for making the calculation: politics.

Next.

 

[rightwinger]

 

[BULLDOG]

When I first saw that picture, I was about 12 or 13. Those ladies were HOT!!!!.

 

[night_son]

….as it applies to the question of abortion….or, Pro-Lifers: don’t count on the court.


There are several misapprehensions about the Supreme Court, and anyone serious about more than their personal income and outgo should be aware of them.



1.The Supreme Court is not an arbiter of morality, righteousness, or rectitude. It was, from it’s beginning, based on theft and misappropriation of power. The chief thief, John Marshall was appointed Chief Justice in 1801, and he consistently tried to reduce any limits on federal power. Case in point, in the 1821 decision in Cohens v. Virginia, he found that the 11th amendment only banned suits against states that were initiated in federal courts.

Nonsense: this was not the intent of the amendment, but rather an intent to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts and the federal government.





2. The Founders did not intend for all to bend knee and neck to any court. The Constitution is the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by. The Founders knew that, by man's nature, aggrandizement would always be sought; this included the courts. So, March 4, 1794, Congress passed the 11th amendment:
"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."

You see, in 1792, Virginia had refused to respond to the Court at all (Grayson, et. al. v. Virginia) (Page 26 of 44) - The Impact of State Sovereign Immunity: A Case Study authored by Shortell, Christopher.




One of the ploys used is found in the word ‘interpret.’ How oblivious must one be not to notice that the Constitution, the real ‘supreme,’ is written in the lingua franca of this nation…English. That means any…even government school grads can ‘interpret’ what it means.
Don’t be fooled into believing that judges have some special power or insight in terms of the English language.





3. And speaking of power…..don’t be fooled into imagining that the Constitution, the law of the land, requires following the dictates of the Supreme Court. It doesn’t.
No elected official has to follow their order.

These understood that:

“Jefferson: to “consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

Jackson: “The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both.”

Lincoln: “If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”

Franklin Roosevelt: Proposed speech stating that if the Supreme Court should invalidate a certain New Deal measure, he would not “stand idly by and... permit the decision of the Supreme Court to be carried through to its logical inescapable conclusion.” Quoted in Kathleen M. Sullivan et al., “Constitutional Law,” pg. 20– 24 (15 ed., 2004).




And the motivation for this thread is the Supreme Court’s view on abortion…..getting to that next.

This issue has been on my mind for some time, the appearance of a not so de facto dictatorship of the Judiciary. What's even more difficult to ignore is how essentially at the same time Roe v. Wade was making its Supreme Court rounds, an entire commercial industry was being raised and expanded around the concept of abortion on demand. Coincidence?

See, our nation was also founded on an ethos, a deep belief that no ruler or council of them could make either a final decision for all of us or dictate final moral judgements. If I were some ancient force of evil extant since time immemorial or a rabid postmodernist (neo-Marxist), well then I would fight tooth and nail to keep the belief alive in the American People that killing their unborn was necessary, natural, normal and guilt free. Why? For the obvious prime reason that if a person, namely an expecting mother, is willing to destroy what tens of thousands of years of human biological development has programmed her to protect at all costs . . . well, then I could get such people to be on board with the commission of any atrocity.

Some of our fellow dunces here believe in mass child murder because they think they're rebelling against the Man. Others, because their ideologue priests told them it was cool and okay. Still others think abortion is the ultimate feminist act . . . that killing the life within them is affirmation and proof of a woman's control over her body, even though it is instead control over and destruction of an independent, new human life. Some pro-death lovers, much like defiant teenagers, kill their unborn to spite the God they claim does not exist thinking they're proving just that with their acts of murder. Mostly, seems to me, the average pro-death adherent simply doesn't want to lose an argument at any cost and thus will take the opposing viewpoint come hell or high water. There's not a genuine conviction or belief among them and not a one of them seems to know who originated the modern push for mass child murder. Postmodernists believe in infinite possible outcomes and choices to every stage of the human condition and that no ultimate right or wrong exists, morally. Therefore abortion is one thing today, something else tomorrow and something completely different next week and no matter how we debate them, they'll redefine the matter and associated facts ad infinitum to suit their ideological needs and goals from the personal level to the legislative to the judiciary.

 

[Moonglow]

I see the fifth columnist is at it again attacking American institutions....Damn Asian...

 

[Moonglow]

….as it applies to the question of abortion….or, Pro-Lifers: don’t count on the court.


There are several misapprehensions about the Supreme Court, and anyone serious about more than their personal income and outgo should be aware of them.



1.The Supreme Court is not an arbiter of morality, righteousness, or rectitude. It was, from it’s beginning, based on theft and misappropriation of power. The chief thief, John Marshall was appointed Chief Justice in 1801, and he consistently tried to reduce any limits on federal power. Case in point, in the 1821 decision in Cohens v. Virginia, he found that the 11th amendment only banned suits against states that were initiated in federal courts.

Nonsense: this was not the intent of the amendment, but rather an intent to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts and the federal government.





2. The Founders did not intend for all to bend knee and neck to any court. The Constitution is the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by. The Founders knew that, by man's nature, aggrandizement would always be sought; this included the courts. So, March 4, 1794, Congress passed the 11th amendment:
"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."

You see, in 1792, Virginia had refused to respond to the Court at all (Grayson, et. al. v. Virginia) (Page 26 of 44) - The Impact of State Sovereign Immunity: A Case Study authored by Shortell, Christopher.




One of the ploys used is found in the word ‘interpret.’ How oblivious must one be not to notice that the Constitution, the real ‘supreme,’ is written in the lingua franca of this nation…English. That means any…even government school grads can ‘interpret’ what it means.
Don’t be fooled into believing that judges have some special power or insight in terms of the English language.





3. And speaking of power…..don’t be fooled into imagining that the Constitution, the law of the land, requires following the dictates of the Supreme Court. It doesn’t.
No elected official has to follow their order.

These understood that:

“Jefferson: to “consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

Jackson: “The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both.”

Lincoln: “If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”

Franklin Roosevelt: Proposed speech stating that if the Supreme Court should invalidate a certain New Deal measure, he would not “stand idly by and... permit the decision of the Supreme Court to be carried through to its logical inescapable conclusion.” Quoted in Kathleen M. Sullivan et al., “Constitutional Law,” pg. 20– 24 (15 ed., 2004).




And the motivation for this thread is the Supreme Court’s view on abortion…..getting to that next.

This issue has been on my mind for some time, the appearance of a not so de facto dictatorship of the Judiciary. What's even more difficult to ignore is how essentially at the same time Roe v. Wade was making its Supreme Court rounds, an entire commercial industry was being raised and expanded around the concept of abortion on demand. Coincidence?

See, our nation was also founded on an ethos, a deep belief that no ruler or council of them could make either a final decision for all of us or dictate final moral judgements. If I were some ancient force of evil extant since time immemorial or a rabid postmodernist (neo-Marxist), well then I would fight tooth and nail to keep the belief alive in the American People that killing their unborn was necessary, natural, normal and guilt free. Why? For the obvious prime reason that if a person, namely an expecting mother, is willing to destroy what tens of thousands of years of human biological development has programmed her to protect at all costs . . . well, then I could get such people to be on board with the commission of any atrocity.

Some of our fellow dunces here believe in mass child murder because they think they're rebelling against the Man. Others, because their ideologue priests told them it was cool and okay. Still others think abortion is the ultimate feminist act . . . that killing the life within them is affirmation and proof of a woman's control over her body, even though it is instead control over and destruction of an independent, new human life. Some pro-death lovers, much like defiant teenagers, kill their unborn to spite the God they claim does not exist thinking they're proving just that with their acts of murder. Mostly, seems to me, the average pro-death adherent simply doesn't want to lose an argument at any cost and thus will take the opposing viewpoint come hell or high water. There's not a genuine conviction or belief among them and not a one of them seems to know who originated the modern push for mass child murder. Postmodernists believe in infinite possible outcomes and choices to every stage of the human condition and that no ultimate right or wrong exists, morally. Therefore abortion is one thing today, something else tomorrow and something completely different next week and no matter how we debate them, they'll redefine the matter and associated facts ad infinitum to suit their ideological needs and goals from the personal level to the legislative to the judiciary.

God does it why can't humans?

 

[Moonglow]

The Founders also stated that all men were created equal except da black man...

 

[Dekster]

So now you want to eliminate the Supreme Court. You're a real piece of work, aren't you?

The US Constitution is clearly unconstitutional and must be overturned!!!!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. Decision on subjects like abortion can be viewed through a prism of morality, or of science, or, in the most mundane of views, simply a judgment on whether a specific piece of litigation is allowed under the Constitution.


Or….the court can simply lie, inserting their own bias as law…..e.g., ‘abortion under a bogus right of privacy.’ There is no such ‘right.’



The Supreme Court is not an arbiter of morality, righteousness, or rectitude….or morality. It is purely and simply a political body that cloaks it’s dicta in ‘law.’
Here is the bottom line vis-à-vis the Supreme Court and abortion: do no expect any overturning of Roe. “…Tuesday's ruling artfully dodged the question of abortion,…”
Just as disappointing as Justice Robert’s support of Obamacare, explaining that it is not his duty to repair mistakes that the electorate makes, this court will leave it up to the electorate to put in power those who reflect its values. Politics.....nothing related to morality or even to justice.



Americans will see the savagery in abortion/infanticide, and will elect representatives who do, as well.
And, I believe that will happen.
American are good and moral, and when it becomes clear that abortion is more consistent with this:

"We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky

....than with this:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”


.....then, and only then, will the practice be ruled out of America.





As with Nazis policies, which were based on Democrat programs of Jim Crow and eugenics…..the people will turn against the Democrat policies of abortion and infanticide.
We simply need candidates who can articulate the moral position, leaving no choice to the blocks of stone, the Supreme Court Justices.

 

[alang1216]

6. Decision on subjects like abortion can be viewed through a prism of morality, or of science, or, in the most mundane of views, simply a judgment on whether a specific piece of litigation is allowed under the Constitution.


Or….the court can simply lie, inserting their own bias as law…..e.g., ‘abortion under a bogus right of privacy.’ There is no such ‘right.’



The Supreme Court is not an arbiter of morality, righteousness, or rectitude….or morality. It is purely and simply a political body that cloaks it’s dicta in ‘law.’
Here is the bottom line vis-à-vis the Supreme Court and abortion: do no expect any overturning of Roe. “…Tuesday's ruling artfully dodged the question of abortion,…”
Just as disappointing as Justice Robert’s support of Obamacare, explaining that it is not his duty to repair mistakes that the electorate makes, this court will leave it up to the electorate to put in power those who reflect its values. Politics.....nothing related to morality or even to justice.



Americans will see the savagery in abortion/infanticide, and will elect representatives who do, as well.
And, I believe that will happen.
American are good and moral, and when it becomes clear that abortion is more consistent with this:

"We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky

....than with this:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”


.....then, and only then, will the practice be ruled out of America.





As with Nazis policies, which were based on Democrat programs of Jim Crow and eugenics…..the people will turn against the Democrat policies of abortion and infanticide.
We simply need candidates who can articulate the moral position, leaving no choice to the blocks of stone, the Supreme Court Justices.

The vast majority of Americans want to keep abortion, as Bill stated, safe, legal and rare. It's called common sense as opposed to ideological purity.

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. Decision on subjects like abortion can be viewed through a prism of morality, or of science, or, in the most mundane of views, simply a judgment on whether a specific piece of litigation is allowed under the Constitution.


Or….the court can simply lie, inserting their own bias as law…..e.g., ‘abortion under a bogus right of privacy.’ There is no such ‘right.’



The Supreme Court is not an arbiter of morality, righteousness, or rectitude….or morality. It is purely and simply a political body that cloaks it’s dicta in ‘law.’
Here is the bottom line vis-à-vis the Supreme Court and abortion: do no expect any overturning of Roe. “…Tuesday's ruling artfully dodged the question of abortion,…”
Just as disappointing as Justice Robert’s support of Obamacare, explaining that it is not his duty to repair mistakes that the electorate makes, this court will leave it up to the electorate to put in power those who reflect its values. Politics.....nothing related to morality or even to justice.



Americans will see the savagery in abortion/infanticide, and will elect representatives who do, as well.
And, I believe that will happen.
American are good and moral, and when it becomes clear that abortion is more consistent with this:

"We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky

....than with this:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”


.....then, and only then, will the practice be ruled out of America.





As with Nazis policies, which were based on Democrat programs of Jim Crow and eugenics…..the people will turn against the Democrat policies of abortion and infanticide.
We simply need candidates who can articulate the moral position, leaving no choice to the blocks of stone, the Supreme Court Justices.

The vast majority of Americans want to keep abortion, as Bill stated, safe, legal and rare. It's called common sense as opposed to ideological purity.

"The vast majority of Americans want to keep abortion,..."


We've seen that before.

1. On March 12, 1938, Hitler’s troops rolled over the border from Germany, into Austria. This was the Anschluss, the annexation of Austria into Greater Germany. Three days later, Hitler entered Vienna, greeted by an enthusiastic crowd of up to one million people. A plebiscite was held in less than a month, and 99.7% of Austrians voted to join the Third Reich.
   1. In 1938, Austria had a Jewish population of about 192,000, representing almost 4 percent of the total population. The overwhelming majority of Austrian Jews lived in Vienna, Austria

[November 12, 1933 93.5% of German electorate (43,000,000) voted in favor of Nazi policies.]



Now, did you want me to say 'Good Day'.....or would you rather, simply, 'Sieg Heil'?

 

[ph3iron]

….as it applies to the question of abortion….or, Pro-Lifers: don’t count on the court.


There are several misapprehensions about the Supreme Court, and anyone serious about more than their personal income and outgo should be aware of them.



1.The Supreme Court is not an arbiter of morality, righteousness, or rectitude. It was, from it’s beginning, based on theft and misappropriation of power. The chief thief, John Marshall was appointed Chief Justice in 1801, and he consistently tried to reduce any limits on federal power. Case in point, in the 1821 decision in Cohens v. Virginia, he found that the 11th amendment only banned suits against states that were initiated in federal courts.

Nonsense: this was not the intent of the amendment, but rather an intent to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts and the federal government.





2. The Founders did not intend for all to bend knee and neck to any court. The Constitution is the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by. The Founders knew that, by man's nature, aggrandizement would always be sought; this included the courts. So, March 4, 1794, Congress passed the 11th amendment:
"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."

You see, in 1792, Virginia had refused to respond to the Court at all (Grayson, et. al. v. Virginia) (Page 26 of 44) - The Impact of State Sovereign Immunity: A Case Study authored by Shortell, Christopher.




One of the ploys used is found in the word ‘interpret.’ How oblivious must one be not to notice that the Constitution, the real ‘supreme,’ is written in the lingua franca of this nation…English. That means any…even government school grads can ‘interpret’ what it means.
Don’t be fooled into believing that judges have some special power or insight in terms of the English language.





3. And speaking of power…..don’t be fooled into imagining that the Constitution, the law of the land, requires following the dictates of the Supreme Court. It doesn’t.
No elected official has to follow their order.

These understood that:

“Jefferson: to “consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

Jackson: “The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both.”

Lincoln: “If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”

Franklin Roosevelt: Proposed speech stating that if the Supreme Court should invalidate a certain New Deal measure, he would not “stand idly by and... permit the decision of the Supreme Court to be carried through to its logical inescapable conclusion.” Quoted in Kathleen M. Sullivan et al., “Constitutional Law,” pg. 20– 24 (15 ed., 2004).




And the motivation for this thread is the Supreme Court’s view on abortion…..getting to that next.

Interesting that the Uk supremes have to retire at 62

 

[alang1216]

6. Decision on subjects like abortion can be viewed through a prism of morality, or of science, or, in the most mundane of views, simply a judgment on whether a specific piece of litigation is allowed under the Constitution.


Or….the court can simply lie, inserting their own bias as law…..e.g., ‘abortion under a bogus right of privacy.’ There is no such ‘right.’



The Supreme Court is not an arbiter of morality, righteousness, or rectitude….or morality. It is purely and simply a political body that cloaks it’s dicta in ‘law.’
Here is the bottom line vis-à-vis the Supreme Court and abortion: do no expect any overturning of Roe. “…Tuesday's ruling artfully dodged the question of abortion,…”
Just as disappointing as Justice Robert’s support of Obamacare, explaining that it is not his duty to repair mistakes that the electorate makes, this court will leave it up to the electorate to put in power those who reflect its values. Politics.....nothing related to morality or even to justice.



Americans will see the savagery in abortion/infanticide, and will elect representatives who do, as well.
And, I believe that will happen.
American are good and moral, and when it becomes clear that abortion is more consistent with this:

"We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky

....than with this:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”


.....then, and only then, will the practice be ruled out of America.





As with Nazis policies, which were based on Democrat programs of Jim Crow and eugenics…..the people will turn against the Democrat policies of abortion and infanticide.
We simply need candidates who can articulate the moral position, leaving no choice to the blocks of stone, the Supreme Court Justices.

The vast majority of Americans want to keep abortion, as Bill stated, safe, legal and rare. It's called common sense as opposed to ideological purity.

"The vast majority of Americans want to keep abortion,..."


We've seen that before.

1. On March 12, 1938, Hitler’s troops rolled over the border from Germany, into Austria. This was the Anschluss, the annexation of Austria into Greater Germany. Three days later, Hitler entered Vienna, greeted by an enthusiastic crowd of up to one million people. A plebiscite was held in less than a month, and 99.7% of Austrians voted to join the Third Reich.
   1. In 1938, Austria had a Jewish population of about 192,000, representing almost 4 percent of the total population. The overwhelming majority of Austrian Jews lived in Vienna, Austria

[November 12, 1933 93.5% of German electorate (43,000,000) voted in favor of Nazi policies.]



Now, did you want me to say 'Good Day'.....or would you rather, simply, 'Sieg Heil'?

Since you don't like democracy, what form or gov't would you prefer?

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. Decision on subjects like abortion can be viewed through a prism of morality, or of science, or, in the most mundane of views, simply a judgment on whether a specific piece of litigation is allowed under the Constitution.


Or….the court can simply lie, inserting their own bias as law…..e.g., ‘abortion under a bogus right of privacy.’ There is no such ‘right.’



The Supreme Court is not an arbiter of morality, righteousness, or rectitude….or morality. It is purely and simply a political body that cloaks it’s dicta in ‘law.’
Here is the bottom line vis-à-vis the Supreme Court and abortion: do no expect any overturning of Roe. “…Tuesday's ruling artfully dodged the question of abortion,…”
Just as disappointing as Justice Robert’s support of Obamacare, explaining that it is not his duty to repair mistakes that the electorate makes, this court will leave it up to the electorate to put in power those who reflect its values. Politics.....nothing related to morality or even to justice.



Americans will see the savagery in abortion/infanticide, and will elect representatives who do, as well.
And, I believe that will happen.
American are good and moral, and when it becomes clear that abortion is more consistent with this:

"We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky

....than with this:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”


.....then, and only then, will the practice be ruled out of America.





As with Nazis policies, which were based on Democrat programs of Jim Crow and eugenics…..the people will turn against the Democrat policies of abortion and infanticide.
We simply need candidates who can articulate the moral position, leaving no choice to the blocks of stone, the Supreme Court Justices.

The vast majority of Americans want to keep abortion, as Bill stated, safe, legal and rare. It's called common sense as opposed to ideological purity.

As stated earlier.....As with Nazis policies, which were based on Democrat programs of Jim Crow and eugenics…..the people will turn against the Democrat policies of abortion and infanticide.




Seem to be lots of Good Germans......er, Democrats.......here.

And the Satan gene appears to be a dominant one.
Do you celebrate the slaughter with some sort of A bacchanal????

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. Decision on subjects like abortion can be viewed through a prism of morality, or of science, or, in the most mundane of views, simply a judgment on whether a specific piece of litigation is allowed under the Constitution.


Or….the court can simply lie, inserting their own bias as law…..e.g., ‘abortion under a bogus right of privacy.’ There is no such ‘right.’



The Supreme Court is not an arbiter of morality, righteousness, or rectitude….or morality. It is purely and simply a political body that cloaks it’s dicta in ‘law.’
Here is the bottom line vis-à-vis the Supreme Court and abortion: do no expect any overturning of Roe. “…Tuesday's ruling artfully dodged the question of abortion,…”
Just as disappointing as Justice Robert’s support of Obamacare, explaining that it is not his duty to repair mistakes that the electorate makes, this court will leave it up to the electorate to put in power those who reflect its values. Politics.....nothing related to morality or even to justice.



Americans will see the savagery in abortion/infanticide, and will elect representatives who do, as well.
And, I believe that will happen.
American are good and moral, and when it becomes clear that abortion is more consistent with this:

"We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky

....than with this:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”


.....then, and only then, will the practice be ruled out of America.





As with Nazis policies, which were based on Democrat programs of Jim Crow and eugenics…..the people will turn against the Democrat policies of abortion and infanticide.
We simply need candidates who can articulate the moral position, leaving no choice to the blocks of stone, the Supreme Court Justices.

The vast majority of Americans want to keep abortion, as Bill stated, safe, legal and rare. It's called common sense as opposed to ideological purity.

"The vast majority of Americans want to keep abortion,..."


We've seen that before.

1. On March 12, 1938, Hitler’s troops rolled over the border from Germany, into Austria. This was the Anschluss, the annexation of Austria into Greater Germany. Three days later, Hitler entered Vienna, greeted by an enthusiastic crowd of up to one million people. A plebiscite was held in less than a month, and 99.7% of Austrians voted to join the Third Reich.
   1. In 1938, Austria had a Jewish population of about 192,000, representing almost 4 percent of the total population. The overwhelming majority of Austrian Jews lived in Vienna, Austria

[November 12, 1933 93.5% of German electorate (43,000,000) voted in favor of Nazi policies.]



Now, did you want me to say 'Good Day'.....or would you rather, simply, 'Sieg Heil'?

Since you don't like democracy, what form or gov't would you prefer?

"Since you don't like democracy,..."


Don't know why you'd lie like that....except that I've hit a nerve.

I don't like Nazis or the slaughter of innocent human beings.

Kind of sets me against Nazis, Bolsheviks and Democrats, huh?

Remember to press that brown shirt of yours......

 

[PoliticalChic]

….as it applies to the question of abortion….or, Pro-Lifers: don’t count on the court.


There are several misapprehensions about the Supreme Court, and anyone serious about more than their personal income and outgo should be aware of them.



1.The Supreme Court is not an arbiter of morality, righteousness, or rectitude. It was, from it’s beginning, based on theft and misappropriation of power. The chief thief, John Marshall was appointed Chief Justice in 1801, and he consistently tried to reduce any limits on federal power. Case in point, in the 1821 decision in Cohens v. Virginia, he found that the 11th amendment only banned suits against states that were initiated in federal courts.

Nonsense: this was not the intent of the amendment, but rather an intent to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts and the federal government.





2. The Founders did not intend for all to bend knee and neck to any court. The Constitution is the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by. The Founders knew that, by man's nature, aggrandizement would always be sought; this included the courts. So, March 4, 1794, Congress passed the 11th amendment:
"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."

You see, in 1792, Virginia had refused to respond to the Court at all (Grayson, et. al. v. Virginia) (Page 26 of 44) - The Impact of State Sovereign Immunity: A Case Study authored by Shortell, Christopher.




One of the ploys used is found in the word ‘interpret.’ How oblivious must one be not to notice that the Constitution, the real ‘supreme,’ is written in the lingua franca of this nation…English. That means any…even government school grads can ‘interpret’ what it means.
Don’t be fooled into believing that judges have some special power or insight in terms of the English language.





3. And speaking of power…..don’t be fooled into imagining that the Constitution, the law of the land, requires following the dictates of the Supreme Court. It doesn’t.
No elected official has to follow their order.

These understood that:

“Jefferson: to “consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

Jackson: “The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both.”

Lincoln: “If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”

Franklin Roosevelt: Proposed speech stating that if the Supreme Court should invalidate a certain New Deal measure, he would not “stand idly by and... permit the decision of the Supreme Court to be carried through to its logical inescapable conclusion.” Quoted in Kathleen M. Sullivan et al., “Constitutional Law,” pg. 20– 24 (15 ed., 2004).




And the motivation for this thread is the Supreme Court’s view on abortion…..getting to that next.

Interesting that the Uk supremes have to retire at 62

What does age have to do with the thesis, that judges rarely have an interest in morality or justice?

Perhaps you either meant that for a different thread, or are keenly aware of your own mortality, old timer.

 

[PoliticalChic]

As with Nazis policies, which were based on Democrat programs of Jim Crow and eugenics….


No truer words where penned than these, of the wanna-be American philosopher, Santayana:

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."


Clearly, government school grads are history-challenged, and are copacetic with slaughter.

 

[alang1216]

6. Decision on subjects like abortion can be viewed through a prism of morality, or of science, or, in the most mundane of views, simply a judgment on whether a specific piece of litigation is allowed under the Constitution.


Or….the court can simply lie, inserting their own bias as law…..e.g., ‘abortion under a bogus right of privacy.’ There is no such ‘right.’



The Supreme Court is not an arbiter of morality, righteousness, or rectitude….or morality. It is purely and simply a political body that cloaks it’s dicta in ‘law.’
Here is the bottom line vis-à-vis the Supreme Court and abortion: do no expect any overturning of Roe. “…Tuesday's ruling artfully dodged the question of abortion,…”
Just as disappointing as Justice Robert’s support of Obamacare, explaining that it is not his duty to repair mistakes that the electorate makes, this court will leave it up to the electorate to put in power those who reflect its values. Politics.....nothing related to morality or even to justice.



Americans will see the savagery in abortion/infanticide, and will elect representatives who do, as well.
And, I believe that will happen.
American are good and moral, and when it becomes clear that abortion is more consistent with this:

"We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky

....than with this:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”


.....then, and only then, will the practice be ruled out of America.





As with Nazis policies, which were based on Democrat programs of Jim Crow and eugenics…..the people will turn against the Democrat policies of abortion and infanticide.
We simply need candidates who can articulate the moral position, leaving no choice to the blocks of stone, the Supreme Court Justices.

The vast majority of Americans want to keep abortion, as Bill stated, safe, legal and rare. It's called common sense as opposed to ideological purity.

"The vast majority of Americans want to keep abortion,..."


We've seen that before.

1. On March 12, 1938, Hitler’s troops rolled over the border from Germany, into Austria. This was the Anschluss, the annexation of Austria into Greater Germany. Three days later, Hitler entered Vienna, greeted by an enthusiastic crowd of up to one million people. A plebiscite was held in less than a month, and 99.7% of Austrians voted to join the Third Reich.
   1. In 1938, Austria had a Jewish population of about 192,000, representing almost 4 percent of the total population. The overwhelming majority of Austrian Jews lived in Vienna, Austria

[November 12, 1933 93.5% of German electorate (43,000,000) voted in favor of Nazi policies.]



Now, did you want me to say 'Good Day'.....or would you rather, simply, 'Sieg Heil'?

Since you don't like democracy, what form or gov't would you prefer?

"Since you don't like democracy,..."


Don't know why you'd lie like that....except that I've hit a nerve.

I don't like Nazis or the slaughter of innocent human beings.

Kind of sets me against Nazis, Bolsheviks and Democrats, huh?

Remember to press that brown shirt of yours......

It seemed a logical conclusion since you equated what the 'vast majority of Americans want' with fascism.