Freedom

[IceMan30]

My Dad's ex Girlfriend was a Republican.

She got really mad at me, when she said that I can thank Americans for Freedom.
And what I did was...
I walked into the Supreme Court, asked permission to speak, and was granted it a half an hour later.
And I said "Geneva here, says that I can thank Americans for freedom, so here I am, thanking the ONLY 9 Americans to ever extend ANY American whatsoever in American History, even so much as a GLIMPSE of Freedom".

Everybody laughed their butts off and a conservative group that was in there was screaming
"there goes America's modern attitude about America today, maybe we should abolish congress and only have this court make the laws"

lmfao !

 

[emilynghiem]

Sorry I don't get it IceMan30
are you being sarcastic?

That if we rely on 9 judges to decide what rights and freedoms
"America is ready to recognize" that's like the old days of
divine right of kings to rule, or theocracies where popes declare the laws for people.

Is that the same pattern of humanity:
to fight for rights to vote, just to vote in a king to tell us what to do
when we can't agree?

Or we vote in someone to APPOINT judges to decide laws for us.

Which way did you mean this?
Sincerely that judges are preventing govt from being more oppressive or imposing?
Or sarcastic that our rights and freedoms are supposed to be naturally inherent,
and we aren't supposed to be relying on govt to dictate for us, especially not by mandatory rulings.

 

[IceMan30]

Sorry I don't get it IceMan30
are you being sarcastic?

That if we rely on 9 judges to decide what rights and freedoms
"America is ready to recognize" that's like the old days of
divine right of kings to rule, or theocracies where popes declare the laws for people.

Is that the same pattern of humanity:
to fight for rights to vote, just to vote in a king to tell us what to do
when we can't agree?

Or we vote in someone to APPOINT judges to decide laws for us.

Which way did you mean this?
Sincerely that judges are preventing govt from being more oppressive or imposing?
Or sarcastic that our rights and freedoms are supposed to be naturally inherent,
and we aren't supposed to be relying on govt to dictate for us, especially not by mandatory rulings.

Somebody needs to be in place who can strike down asshole laws, and prevent assholes from using their power to be assholes.

 

[Slade3200]

Sorry I don't get it IceMan30
are you being sarcastic?

That if we rely on 9 judges to decide what rights and freedoms
"America is ready to recognize" that's like the old days of
divine right of kings to rule, or theocracies where popes declare the laws for people.

Is that the same pattern of humanity:
to fight for rights to vote, just to vote in a king to tell us what to do
when we can't agree?

Or we vote in someone to APPOINT judges to decide laws for us.

Which way did you mean this?
Sincerely that judges are preventing govt from being more oppressive or imposing?
Or sarcastic that our rights and freedoms are supposed to be naturally inherent,
and we aren't supposed to be relying on govt to dictate for us, especially not by mandatory rulings.

Somebody needs to be in place who can strike down asshole laws, and prevent assholes from using their power to be assholes.

Only if we had something like the power of veto or checks and balances... Maybe you can send a letter to the founding fathers in a time machine and see if they could add something like that to the constitution.

 

[IceMan30]

Sorry I don't get it IceMan30
are you being sarcastic?

That if we rely on 9 judges to decide what rights and freedoms
"America is ready to recognize" that's like the old days of
divine right of kings to rule, or theocracies where popes declare the laws for people.

Is that the same pattern of humanity:
to fight for rights to vote, just to vote in a king to tell us what to do
when we can't agree?

Or we vote in someone to APPOINT judges to decide laws for us.

Which way did you mean this?
Sincerely that judges are preventing govt from being more oppressive or imposing?
Or sarcastic that our rights and freedoms are supposed to be naturally inherent,
and we aren't supposed to be relying on govt to dictate for us, especially not by mandatory rulings.

Somebody needs to be in place who can strike down asshole laws, and prevent assholes from using their power to be assholes.

Only if we had something like the power of veto or checks and balances... Maybe you can send a letter to the founding fathers in a time machine and see if they could add something like that to the constitution.

They added the supreme court as part of that system of checks and balances.
and to this day, the supreme court, (and a few presidents) have been the only freedom protecting part of it.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Sorry I don't get it IceMan30
are you being sarcastic?

That if we rely on 9 judges to decide what rights and freedoms
"America is ready to recognize" that's like the old days of
divine right of kings to rule, or theocracies where popes declare the laws for people.

Is that the same pattern of humanity:
to fight for rights to vote, just to vote in a king to tell us what to do
when we can't agree?

Or we vote in someone to APPOINT judges to decide laws for us.

Which way did you mean this?
Sincerely that judges are preventing govt from being more oppressive or imposing?
Or sarcastic that our rights and freedoms are supposed to be naturally inherent,
and we aren't supposed to be relying on govt to dictate for us, especially not by mandatory rulings.

Somebody needs to be in place who can strike down asshole laws, and prevent assholes from using their power to be assholes.

And if the justices prove to be assholes?

 

[IceMan30]

Sorry I don't get it IceMan30
are you being sarcastic?

That if we rely on 9 judges to decide what rights and freedoms
"America is ready to recognize" that's like the old days of
divine right of kings to rule, or theocracies where popes declare the laws for people.

Is that the same pattern of humanity:
to fight for rights to vote, just to vote in a king to tell us what to do
when we can't agree?

Or we vote in someone to APPOINT judges to decide laws for us.

Which way did you mean this?
Sincerely that judges are preventing govt from being more oppressive or imposing?
Or sarcastic that our rights and freedoms are supposed to be naturally inherent,
and we aren't supposed to be relying on govt to dictate for us, especially not by mandatory rulings.

Somebody needs to be in place who can strike down asshole laws, and prevent assholes from using their power to be assholes.

And if the justices prove to be assholes?

Then we're fucked.
But rarely has that happened.

The only time in recent history that it ever happened, was when the supreme court said that the Westboro Baptist Church doesn't owe money to their victims.
I would have ruled in favor of the dead soldier's families.

In a ruling that says...

"The Freedom of Speech clause of the First Amendment does not protect disorderly conduct, abuse, bullying, hate, slander, and libelous"

 

[toomuchtime_]

Sorry I don't get it IceMan30
are you being sarcastic?

That if we rely on 9 judges to decide what rights and freedoms
"America is ready to recognize" that's like the old days of
divine right of kings to rule, or theocracies where popes declare the laws for people.

Is that the same pattern of humanity:
to fight for rights to vote, just to vote in a king to tell us what to do
when we can't agree?

Or we vote in someone to APPOINT judges to decide laws for us.

Which way did you mean this?
Sincerely that judges are preventing govt from being more oppressive or imposing?
Or sarcastic that our rights and freedoms are supposed to be naturally inherent,
and we aren't supposed to be relying on govt to dictate for us, especially not by mandatory rulings.

Somebody needs to be in place who can strike down asshole laws, and prevent assholes from using their power to be assholes.

And if the justices prove to be assholes?

Then we're fucked.
But rarely has that happened.

The only time in recent history that it ever happened, was when the supreme court said that the Westboro Baptist Church doesn't owe money to their victims.

There are a lot more cases than that. Because of Supreme Court decisions, the prosecutor could ask for the death penalty for the Boston Marathon bomber, who had only become a citizen a year before the bombing, but not to strip him of his citizenship, and the 5 to 4 decision that invalidated anti flag burning laws in 48 states.

 

[IceMan30]

Sorry I don't get it IceMan30
are you being sarcastic?

That if we rely on 9 judges to decide what rights and freedoms
"America is ready to recognize" that's like the old days of
divine right of kings to rule, or theocracies where popes declare the laws for people.

Is that the same pattern of humanity:
to fight for rights to vote, just to vote in a king to tell us what to do
when we can't agree?

Or we vote in someone to APPOINT judges to decide laws for us.

Which way did you mean this?
Sincerely that judges are preventing govt from being more oppressive or imposing?
Or sarcastic that our rights and freedoms are supposed to be naturally inherent,
and we aren't supposed to be relying on govt to dictate for us, especially not by mandatory rulings.

Somebody needs to be in place who can strike down asshole laws, and prevent assholes from using their power to be assholes.

And if the justices prove to be assholes?

Then we're fucked.
But rarely has that happened.

The only time in recent history that it ever happened, was when the supreme court said that the Westboro Baptist Church doesn't owe money to their victims.

There are a lot more cases than that. Because of Supreme Court decisions, the prosecutor could ask for the death penalty for the Boston Marathon bomber, who had only become a citizen a year before the bombing, but not to strip him of his citizenship, and the 5 to 4 decision that invalidated anti flag burning laws in 48 states.

These would be my rulings if I were on the supreme court.

The Freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment does not protect BANNED behavior under disorderly conduct laws, nor abuse, bullying, hate, slander, and libelous.

The Freedom of religion clause of the First Amendment is the freedom to practice your religion, not the freedom to deny any people who depend on you, the services that they require, because you religiously disagree with it.

The Freedom of assembly clause of the First Amendment, does not protect membership of criminal enterprises.

The second amendment means WE the PEOPLE, not YOU the individual PERSON, we as a country have the right to keep and bear armament, through having a trained military force, in modern times extending to law enforcement.

The 8th Amendment means that You cannot be given such high bail that you cannot afford it, thereby, by proxy, denying you freedom without due process.
And killing people is Unconstitutional because it is cruel, and on the global stage, now also unusual in the western world.

 

[emilynghiem]

Sorry I don't get it IceMan30
are you being sarcastic?

That if we rely on 9 judges to decide what rights and freedoms
"America is ready to recognize" that's like the old days of
divine right of kings to rule, or theocracies where popes declare the laws for people.

Is that the same pattern of humanity:
to fight for rights to vote, just to vote in a king to tell us what to do
when we can't agree?

Or we vote in someone to APPOINT judges to decide laws for us.

Which way did you mean this?
Sincerely that judges are preventing govt from being more oppressive or imposing?
Or sarcastic that our rights and freedoms are supposed to be naturally inherent,
and we aren't supposed to be relying on govt to dictate for us, especially not by mandatory rulings.

Somebody needs to be in place who can strike down asshole laws, and prevent assholes from using their power to be assholes.

And if the justices prove to be assholes?

Then we're fucked.
But rarely has that happened.

The only time in recent history that it ever happened, was when the supreme court said that the Westboro Baptist Church doesn't owe money to their victims.
I would have ruled in favor of the dead soldier's families.

In a ruling that says...

"The Freedom of Speech clause of the First Amendment does not protect disorderly conduct, abuse, bullying, hate, slander, and libelous"

Dear Iceman
The way I say the same thing
Is to use the First Amendment to check itself.

It includes the right of the people PEACEABLY to assemble, so if you are breaching or disrupting the peace
You are violating the same law you are invoking.

It also includes the right of the people to petition to redress grievances.
So if you are going to protest object and demand others to hear your grievances, so do they have the same right to protest you! It's mutual, and no laws should be taken out of context with the REST of the First Amendment and the Bill of rights protecting due process of laws.

I'd teach the whole law in full context,
And it checks itself

 

[Crixus]

Sorry I don't get it IceMan30
are you being sarcastic?

That if we rely on 9 judges to decide what rights and freedoms
"America is ready to recognize" that's like the old days of
divine right of kings to rule, or theocracies where popes declare the laws for people.

Is that the same pattern of humanity:
to fight for rights to vote, just to vote in a king to tell us what to do
when we can't agree?

Or we vote in someone to APPOINT judges to decide laws for us.

Which way did you mean this?
Sincerely that judges are preventing govt from being more oppressive or imposing?
Or sarcastic that our rights and freedoms are supposed to be naturally inherent,
and we aren't supposed to be relying on govt to dictate for us, especially not by mandatory rulings.

Nope. Dude is spun out of his gourd.