How is it the Right is Biased but the Left are not?

[peach174]

Read the article on Roger Ailes in Rolling Stone a few months back.

Some of us have a life.

So do I.
Just because I read the bills does not mean that I don't have a life.

Read the article on Roger Ailes and Fox News.

When you say that there are liberals working at Fox News, are you basing this on any information, or is it just speculation?

The actual people that work there. On the shows;
Bob Beckel, Juan Williams, Charles Krauthammer ,Alan Colms ,Wesley Clark, Martin Frost.
Not to mentions the writers and those that work behind the scenes.
This is a write up from a liberal who works for Fox News.
A liberal's defense of Fox News / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com

 

[peach174]

Then why does obama claim to be a Constitutional lawyer?

Because he was between politically funded jobs and he could teach anything he wanted to in a very liberal college and that happened to be constitution. I shudder to think what his poor students were taught about the constitution because it has become very apparent to me that he sees the Constitution as a very different document that what I was taught about it or what the Founders wrote about it.

Do you think that there is no room for different interpretations of the Constitution? Just you are right.

There is no different interpretation for the Constitution.
It says what it means and means what it says.

 

[NoNukes]

Because he was between politically funded jobs and he could teach anything he wanted to in a very liberal college and that happened to be constitution. I shudder to think what his poor students were taught about the constitution because it has become very apparent to me that he sees the Constitution as a very different document that what I was taught about it or what the Founders wrote about it.

Do you think that there is no room for different interpretations of the Constitution? Just you are right.

There is no room to interpret the Constitution differently than the Founders interpreted it. A good constitutional educator will start there and then explain how different courts and legislators have altered the original concept. They will leave it up to their students to decide if that was a good thing or a bad thing.

I am guessing our fearless leader has had zero instruction in the Founders original intent and would bet an expensive steak dinner that he has never taught it.

There appears to be different ideas of how the founding fathers meant it, such as the second amendment. There should be interpretations that deal with life as we know it today.

 

[NoNukes]

So do I.
Just because I read the bills does not mean that I don't have a life.

Read the article on Roger Ailes and Fox News.

When you say that there are liberals working at Fox News, are you basing this on any information, or is it just speculation?

The actual people that work there. On the shows;
Bob Beckel, Juan Williams, Charles Krauthammer ,Alan Colms ,Wesley Clark, Martin Frost.
Not to mentions the writers and those that work behind the scenes.
This is a write up from a liberal who works for Fox News.
A liberal's defense of Fox News / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com

That article is 6 years old!!!!

What people who work on those shows?????
What writers are liberals?

 

[Ernie S.]

Then why does obama claim to be a Constitutional lawyer?

Because he was between politically funded jobs and he could teach anything he wanted to in a very liberal college and that happened to be constitution. I shudder to think what his poor students were taught about the constitution because it has become very apparent to me that he sees the Constitution as a very different document that what I was taught about it or what the Founders wrote about it.

Do you think that there is no room for different interpretations of the Constitution? Just you are right.

The Constitution was written so citizens of the 18th century could understand it. It can only be "interpreted" one way. LITERALLY!

 

[Ernie S.]

Do you think that there is no room for different interpretations of the Constitution? Just you are right.

There is no room to interpret the Constitution differently than the Founders interpreted it. A good constitutional educator will start there and then explain how different courts and legislators have altered the original concept. They will leave it up to their students to decide if that was a good thing or a bad thing.

I am guessing our fearless leader has had zero instruction in the Founders original intent and would bet an expensive steak dinner that he has never taught it.

There appears to be different ideas of how the founding fathers meant it, such as the second amendment. There should be interpretations that deal with life as we know it today.

There are different opinions, but the words "Shall not be infringed" are pretty simple, even for a liberal to understand.

 

[peach174]

Read the article on Roger Ailes and Fox News.

When you say that there are liberals working at Fox News, are you basing this on any information, or is it just speculation?

The actual people that work there. On the shows;
Bob Beckel, Juan Williams, Charles Krauthammer ,Alan Colms ,Wesley Clark, Martin Frost.
Not to mentions the writers and those that work behind the scenes.
This is a write up from a liberal who works for Fox News.
A liberals defense of Fox News / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com

That article is 6 years old!!!!

What people who work on those shows?????
What writers are liberals?

You don't think that Bob Beckel, Juan Williams and Charles Krauthammer are liberal?
They just hired Juan Williams because NPR Fired him for speaking his mind.

 

[Foxfyre]

Do you think that there is no room for different interpretations of the Constitution? Just you are right.

There is no room to interpret the Constitution differently than the Founders interpreted it. A good constitutional educator will start there and then explain how different courts and legislators have altered the original concept. They will leave it up to their students to decide if that was a good thing or a bad thing.

I am guessing our fearless leader has had zero instruction in the Founders original intent and would bet an expensive steak dinner that he has never taught it.

There appears to be different ideas of how the founding fathers meant it, such as the second amendment. There should be interpretations that deal with life as we know it today.

Have you read what the Founders said/wrote about the Second Amendment themselves as well as others observing and commenting on it? There is little room left for ambiguity. If there was any disagreement it was on whether the Federal government should have a standing army. There was never any question about the state militias which they were quite clear consisted of every person with a gun. And they were quite clear that every citizen had an unalienable right to be armed.

Just some comments:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Second Amendment states: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322)

"The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals.... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." (Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789)

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States....Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America" - (Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789.)

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])

"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169)

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}])

"...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)

"the ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone," (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper #46.)

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in `An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))

"...if raised, whether they could subdue a Nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?" (Delegate Sedgwick, during the Massachusetts Convention, rhetorically asking if an oppressive standing army could prevail, Johnathan Elliot, ed., Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Vol.2 at 97 (2d ed., 1888))

"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.)

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46.)

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." (Tench Coxe in `Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym `A Pennsylvanian' in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1)

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)

"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." [William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)

"The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)..)

"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,...taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386)

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." (Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646)

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8)

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850))

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939)

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined" (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" (George Washington)

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks. (Thomas Jefferson, Encyclopedia of T. Jefferson, 318 [Foley, Ed., reissued 1967])

"The supposed quietude of a good mans allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside...Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them..." (Thomas Paine, I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 [1894])

"...the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms" (from article in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette June 18, 1789 at 2, col.2,)

"Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people." (Aristotle, as quoted by John Trenchard and Water Moyle, An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy [London, 1697])

"No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion." (James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775])

"Men that are above all Fear, soon grow above all Shame." (John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, Cato's Letters: Or, Essays on Liberty, Civil and Religious, and Other Important Subjects [London, 1755])

"The difficulty here has been to persuade the citizens to keep arms, not to prevent them from being employed for violent purposes." (Dwight, Travels in New-England)

"What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787, in Papers of Jefferson, ed. Boyd et al.)

(The American Colonies were) "all democratic governments, where the power is in the hands of the people and where there is not the least difficulty or jealousy about putting arms into the hands of every man in the country. (European countries should not) be ignorant of the strength and the force of such a form of government and how strenuously and almost wonderfully people living under one have sometimes exerted themselves in defence of their rights and liberties and how fatally it has ended with many a man and many a state who have entered into quarrels, wars and contests with them." [George Mason, "Remarks on Annual Elections for the Fairfax Independent Company" in The Papers of George Mason, 1725-1792, ed Robert A. Rutland (Chapel Hill, 1970)]

"To trust arms in the hands of the people at large has, in Europe, been believed...to be an experiment fraught only with danger. Here by a long trial it has been proved to be perfectly harmless...If the government be equitable; if it be reasonable in its exactions; if proper attention be paid to the education of children in knowledge and religion, few men will be disposed to use arms, unless for their amusement, and for the defence of themselves and their country." (Timothy Dwight, Travels in New England and NewYork [London 1823]

"It is not certain that with this aid alone [possession of arms], they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to posses the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will, and direct the national force; and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned, in spite of the legions which surround it." (James Madison, "Federalist No. 46")

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights." (Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States; With a Preliminary Review of the Constitutional History of the Colonies and States before the Adoption of the Constitution [Boston, 1833])

"The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military. The hired servants of our rulers. Only the government-and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws." (Edward Abbey, "The Right to Arms," Abbey's Road [New York, 1979])

"You are bound to meet misfortune if you are unarmed because, among other reasons, people despise you....There is simply no comparison between a man who is armed and one who is not. It is unreasonable to expect that an armed man should obey one who is unarmed, or that an unarmed man should remain safe and secure when his servants are armed. In the latter case, there will be suspicion on the one hand and contempt on the other, making cooperation impossible." (Niccolo Machiavelli in "The Prince")

"You must understand, therefore, that there are two ways of fighting: by law or by force. The first way is natural to men, and the second to beasts. But as the first way often proves inadequate one must needs have recourse to the second." (Niccolo Machiavelli in "The Prince")

"As much as I oppose the average person's having a gun, I recognize that some people have a legitimate need to own one. A wealthy corporate executive who fears his family might get kidnapped is one such person. A Hollywood celebrity who has to protect himself from kooks is another. If Sharon Tate had had access to a gun during the Manson killings, some innocent lives might have been saved." [Joseph D. McNamara (San Jose, CA Police Chief), in his book, Safe and Sane, (c) 1984, p. 71-72.]

"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege." [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)]

For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution." [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822)]

" `The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right." [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)]

"The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff." [People vs. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 (1922)]

"The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions." [State vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921)]

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]

 

[NoNukes]

The actual people that work there. On the shows;
Bob Beckel, Juan Williams, Charles Krauthammer ,Alan Colms ,Wesley Clark, Martin Frost.
Not to mentions the writers and those that work behind the scenes.
This is a write up from a liberal who works for Fox News.
A liberals defense of Fox News / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com

That article is 6 years old!!!!

What people who work on those shows?????
What writers are liberals?

You don't think that Bob Beckel, Juan Williams and Charles Krauthammer are liberal?
They just hired Juan Williams because NPR Fired him for speaking his mind.

Charles Krauthammer a Liberal????

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Because he was between politically funded jobs and he could teach anything he wanted to in a very liberal college and that happened to be constitution. I shudder to think what his poor students were taught about the constitution because it has become very apparent to me that he sees the Constitution as a very different document that what I was taught about it or what the Founders wrote about it.

There is no room to interpret the Constitution differently than the Founders interpreted it. A good constitutional educator will start there and then explain how different courts and legislators have altered the original concept. They will leave it up to their students to decide if that was a good thing or a bad thing.

I am guessing our fearless leader has had zero instruction in the Founders original intent and would bet an expensive steak dinner that he has never taught it.

Documentation?

Otherwise you exhibit your ignorance as to the teaching and study of the law.

The purpose of federal and other judges is to apply the basic principles in the constitution to new situations. That's not what the leftwingers among them have done - they decide on what outcome they want, and then distort the text to get it. Look at it as sort of constitutional text "affirmative action".

Without citing a specific case the above is meaningless. But you also exhibit your ignorance on the subject. All jurists are required to follow case law and precedent with regard to cases they preside over. Failure to do so will result in the ruling being overturned on appeal.

When addressing a ‘new situation,’ the judge reviews the case law of similar cases and formulates his ruling on the decisions made by other judges. Those cases have already been subjected to judicial review and their constitutionality established, many have been reviewed by the Supreme Court. So there is no such thing as an ‘activist judge,’ or ‘legislating from the bench.’

There is no different interpretation for the Constitution.
It says what it means and means what it says.

The Constitution was written so citizens of the 18th century could understand it. It can only be "interpreted" one way. LITERALLY!

Again, the two statements above are meaningless ignorance without a specific case cited.

The Supreme Court is authorized per Marbury v Madison (1803) to decide what the Constitution means. Their decisions become the law of the land, all lower courts are to abide by those rulings, and all citizens must obey them accordingly.

 

[Moonglow]

I see the Liberals as being the most biased.
The Majority of news and newspapers hire liberals, over conservatives.
The Entertainment industry has more liberals than conservatives. And if you speak out that you are conservative, you a bypassed for any real good roles.
The majority of scientists are liberal with only 6% being conservative.
The majority of college professors are liberal.
There is a very small amount of or no representation in unions or the AARP.
All of our public schools system is based on liberal ideology.
Any woman who calls herself conservative is blasted and to hell with equal opportunity by liberal women's groups.
So who is biased?

u r

 

[Patrick2]

The Supreme Court is authorized per Marbury v Madison (1803) to decide what the Constitution means. Their decisions become the law of the land, all lower courts are to abide by those rulings, and all citizens must obey them accordingly.

From the time I first read about Marbury, in I believe 8th grade american history, it didn't make sense to me. Essentially, the USSC GAVE itself a power that isn't in the constitution. If it can do that, what limit is there to the power it can grab for itself? I also noticed over the years when any liberal talks about that decision, they speak fondly of what was a pure power grab. That's because it's so in line with what liberals ultimately believe: a rejection of democracy and the rule of written law, and a that a self-appointed "elite" should rule everyone else.

 

[Moonglow]

The Supreme Court is authorized per Marbury v Madison (1803) to decide what the Constitution means. Their decisions become the law of the land, all lower courts are to abide by those rulings, and all citizens must obey them accordingly.

From the time I first read about Marbury, in I believe 8th grade american history, it didn't make sense to me. Essentially, the USSC GAVE itself a power that isn't in the constitution. If it can do that, what limit is there to the power it can grab for itself? I also noticed over the years when any liberal talks about that decision, they speak fondly of what was a pure power grab. That's because it's so in line with what liberals ultimately believe: a rejection of democracy and the rule of written law, and a that a self-appointed "elite" should rule everyone else.

I am a liberal, and I don't support your biased opinon. If ever such a society existed I would be the first to revolt or subvert the destruction of the will of the people.

 

[IndependntLogic]

I see the Liberals as being the most biased.
The Majority of news and newspapers hire liberals, over conservatives.
The Entertainment industry has more liberals than conservatives. And if you speak out that you are conservative, you a bypassed for any real good roles.
The majority of scientists are liberal with only 6% being conservative.
The majority of college professors are liberal.
There is a very small amount of or no representation in unions or the AARP.
All of our public schools system is based on liberal ideology.
Any woman who calls herself conservative is blasted and to hell with equal opportunity by liberal women's groups.
So who is biased?

LOL! Well um, ahem. Thank you Captain Obvious.

Let's see. More bankers are conservative. More investment bankers, stock brokers, bond brokers, commodities brokers and so on are conservative. Where are all the danm liberal stock brokers!

Here's one: EVERY SINGLE CEO OF EVERY COMPANY THAT GOT A BAILOUT WAS A CONSERVATIVE.
That's proof that the danm government is Conservative!!!!

Liberal women are blasted by Conservative women. Duh.

Well, look at all that Conservative biased!

What a um, ah! What an "unbiased" post!

 

[editec]

How is it the Right is Biased but the Left are not?

Silly premise.

Identifying as a leftist or a rightist is ACKNOWLEDGING that you are coming at an issue with a predisposed bias!

 

[peach174]

The left are biased
July 16th,2011
Hollywood finally admitted they discriminate against conservatives.
Stunner. Hollywood Finally Admits Its Bias Against Conservatism | The Gateway Pundit
The Conservatives in hollywood got fed up with it, so they rose up in protest about it last year.

 

[Patrick2]

The Supreme Court is authorized per Marbury v Madison (1803) to decide what the Constitution means. Their decisions become the law of the land, all lower courts are to abide by those rulings, and all citizens must obey them accordingly.

From the time I first read about Marbury, in I believe 8th grade american history, it didn't make sense to me. Essentially, the USSC GAVE itself a power that isn't in the constitution. If it can do that, what limit is there to the power it can grab for itself? I also noticed over the years when any liberal talks about that decision, they speak fondly of what was a pure power grab. That's because it's so in line with what liberals ultimately believe: a rejection of democracy and the rule of written law, and a that a self-appointed "elite" should rule everyone else.

I am a liberal, and I don't support your biased opinon. If ever such a society existed I would be the first to revolt or subvert the destruction of the will of the people.

"Biased"?? What the hell are you talking about? If you want to debate Marbury, speak up, otherwise don't clutter the thread.

 

[Patrick2]

Let's see. More bankers are conservative. More investment bankers, stock brokers, bond brokers, commodities brokers and so on are conservative.

Where do you get that from? Evidence??

Here's one: EVERY SINGLE CEO OF EVERY COMPANY THAT GOT A BAILOUT WAS A CONSERVATIVE.

What nonsense.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Let's see. More bankers are conservative. More investment bankers, stock brokers, bond brokers, commodities brokers and so on are conservative.

Where do you get that from? Evidence??

Here's one: EVERY SINGLE CEO OF EVERY COMPANY THAT GOT A BAILOUT WAS A CONSERVATIVE.

What nonsense.

No I get it. A lot of people wouldn't be able to figure that one out cuz you know, guys like Ken Lewis and John Stumpf are just known for being a bunch of whacky Liberals!

Oh and BTW, I'm not pro-Liberal at all. I'm just anti-stupid, which is what this post is. Gee, do certain occupations and industries tend to attract more Libs than Conservs? Nah, all the guys and gals at the Tattoo & Piercing parlor are always Conservative. And of course all those Investment Bankers are Faux Hawk wearing Liberals!

LOL - always easy to spot the sheeple. Now herd along sweetheart. You need to learn what to think from FOX.

 

[Patrick2]

Let's see. More bankers are conservative. More investment bankers, stock brokers, bond brokers, commodities brokers and so on are conservative.

Where do you get that from? Evidence??

Here's one: EVERY SINGLE CEO OF EVERY COMPANY THAT GOT A BAILOUT WAS A CONSERVATIVE.

What nonsense.

No I get it. A lot of people wouldn't be able to figure that one out cuz you know, guys like Ken Lewis and John Stumpf are just known for being a bunch of whacky Liberals!

Oh and BTW, I'm not pro-Liberal at all. I'm just anti-stupid, which is what this post is. Gee, do certain occupations and industries tend to attract more Libs than Conservs? Nah, all the guys and gals at the Tattoo & Piercing parlor are always Conservative. And of course all those Investment Bankers are Faux Hawk wearing Liberals!

LOL - always easy to spot the sheeple. Now herd along sweetheart. You need to learn what to think from FOX.

You got nailed for BS, tried to tap dance away - FAIL. But nice try sparky.