Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The Answer to Judicial Tyranny
Judicial activism, after all, is the practice of judges ignoring the law and deciding cases based on their personal political views. With the federal judiciary focused more on legislating social policy than upholding the rule of law, Americans find themselves increasingly governed by men they did not elect and cannot remove from office.
********
How do WE THE PEOPLE force judges to decide cases based upon the Constitution and not on their personal views.
Who says that the cases were decided based on personal views and not the constitution?
Read the opinions, they are not based in law... the law is passion free, these opinions speak of intimacy & feelings..... total hogwash.
I have. The ACA ruling was based on the legislative intent of the law. And Obergefell was a predictable outcome of existing legal precedent. Where marriage is a right. And gays are protected under the Equal Protection Clause.
That you disagree with a ruling doesn't make it invalid.
SHUT THE FUCK UP
IF ****** INDIVIDUAL******* RIGHTS TO LIFE, LIBERTY, PROPERTY AND TO PURSUE HAPPINESS ARE SUPREME THEN THE ACA RULING HAS NOT SUPPORT IN OUR CONSTITUTION (1787).
.
The Answer to Judicial Tyranny
Judicial activism, after all, is the practice of judges ignoring the law and deciding cases based on their personal political views. With the federal judiciary focused more on legislating social policy than upholding the rule of law, Americans find themselves increasingly governed by men they did not elect and cannot remove from office.
********
How do WE THE PEOPLE force judges to decide cases based upon the Constitution and not on their personal views.
Who says that the cases were decided based on personal views and not the constitution?
Read the opinions, they are not based in law... the law is passion free, these opinions speak of intimacy & feelings..... total hogwash.
I have. The ACA ruling was based on the legislative intent of the law. And Obergefell was a predictable outcome of existing legal precedent. Where marriage is a right. And gays are protected under the Equal Protection Clause.
That you disagree with a ruling doesn't make it invalid.
SHUT THE FUCK UP
IF ****** INDIVIDUAL******* RIGHTS TO LIFE, LIBERTY, PROPERTY AND TO PURSUE HAPPINESS ARE SUPREME THEN THE ACA RULING HAS NOT SUPPORT IN OUR CONSTITUTION (1787).
.
And individual rights were upheld.
As for the ACA ruling, taxation authority is broad and well established. And the courts recognized the legislative intent of the law. Which is what they are supposed to do.
Who says that the cases were decided based on personal views and not the constitution?
Read the opinions, they are not based in law... the law is passion free, these opinions speak of intimacy & feelings..... total hogwash.
I have. The ACA ruling was based on the legislative intent of the law. And Obergefell was a predictable outcome of existing legal precedent. Where marriage is a right. And gays are protected under the Equal Protection Clause.
That you disagree with a ruling doesn't make it invalid.
SHUT THE FUCK UP
IF ****** INDIVIDUAL******* RIGHTS TO LIFE, LIBERTY, PROPERTY AND TO PURSUE HAPPINESS ARE SUPREME THEN THE ACA RULING HAS NOT SUPPORT IN OUR CONSTITUTION (1787).
.
And individual rights were upheld.
As for the ACA ruling, taxation authority is broad and well established. And the courts recognized the legislative intent of the law. Which is what they are supposed to do.
BULLSHIT.
SINCE 1787 IT HAS BEEN KNOWN THAT THE NEITHER THE FEDERAL NOR THE STATE GOVERNMENT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO STEAL FROM "A" IN ORDER T SUPPORT "B" - WHEREIN "B" IS SKYLAR AND HER PARASITIC COHORTS.
.
You have the mind of a 12 year old and you're not interested in a serious discussion. Fuck off.You have a vivid imagination to get that out of my comment, but then again, dishonesty and diversion is your primary tactic.We're not quite to the point of all-out violent tyranny yet but we're rapidly approaching it. They want to disarm as many of us as possible before they start shooting.The left has spent over 200 years looking for weak spots in the Constitution, chipping away at it's foundation in every way possible. The SC is one of their favorite ways to get what they want, as is blackmail. Clinton used FBI files to intimidate his opponents, Obama uses the IRS, FDR stacked the court with socialists as do ALL Democrats when they get the chance. Everything is fair to them if it achieves their objective, whether it's ethical or not. The only thing that matters is whether or not they can get away with it. Let's face it, the Constitution does not have enough safeguards to protect it from subversion from the left and they've made tremendous progress in dismantling it. They've exploited every negative human trait, greed, laziness, envy, etc. to garner votes and support without regard to the future of our country or the very things that have set us apart from the rest of the world. Our republic is being systematically destroyed as we sit around discussing Caitlin Jenner and other equally important issues.
FASCISTS DO NOT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT WEAK SPOTS- THEY DON'T MIND USING FIREARMS TO FORCE OBAMA CARE ON US.
SCUMBAG ROBERTS KNOWS THAT HIS FASCISTIC RULING WILL BE CONSIDERED THE LAW OF THE LAND.
HE KNOWS THAT THE CONTINUING CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE HAS A MASSIVE DOMESTIC ARMY WILLING AND ABLE TO FORCE US TO COMPLY.
.
Ah, vague and thuggish threats of violence. Followed immediately by chickenshit excuses why you won't be fighting.
You're in excellent company. As most of your ilk have the same excuses why its always someone *else* that should be fighting and bleeding.
So when you referred to 'shooting', you were making reference to cameras? And 'disarm' was removing people's limbs?
Or were you referring to guns and killing people?
Read the opinions, they are not based in law... the law is passion free, these opinions speak of intimacy & feelings..... total hogwash.
I have. The ACA ruling was based on the legislative intent of the law. And Obergefell was a predictable outcome of existing legal precedent. Where marriage is a right. And gays are protected under the Equal Protection Clause.
That you disagree with a ruling doesn't make it invalid.
SHUT THE FUCK UP
IF ****** INDIVIDUAL******* RIGHTS TO LIFE, LIBERTY, PROPERTY AND TO PURSUE HAPPINESS ARE SUPREME THEN THE ACA RULING HAS NOT SUPPORT IN OUR CONSTITUTION (1787).
.
And individual rights were upheld.
As for the ACA ruling, taxation authority is broad and well established. And the courts recognized the legislative intent of the law. Which is what they are supposed to do.
BULLSHIT.
SINCE 1787 IT HAS BEEN KNOWN THAT THE NEITHER THE FEDERAL NOR THE STATE GOVERNMENT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO STEAL FROM "A" IN ORDER T SUPPORT "B" - WHEREIN "B" IS SKYLAR AND HER PARASITIC COHORTS.
.
Who says that ACA 'steals from A in order to support b'?
Other than you citing yourself, of course.
As Justice Hughes said, the Constitution is what the Court say it is.
The Answer to Judicial Tyranny
Judicial activism, after all, is the practice of judges ignoring the law and deciding cases based on their personal political views. With the federal judiciary focused more on legislating social policy than upholding the rule of law, Americans find themselves increasingly governed by men they did not elect and cannot remove from office.
********
How do WE THE PEOPLE force judges to decide cases based upon the Constitution and not on their personal views.
Who says that the cases were decided based on personal views and not the constitution?
Read the opinions, they are not based in law... the law is passion free, these opinions speak of intimacy & feelings..... total hogwash.
I have. The ACA ruling was based on the legislative intent of the law. And Obergefell was a predictable outcome of existing legal precedent. Where marriage is a right. And gays are protected under the Equal Protection Clause.
That you disagree with a ruling doesn't make it invalid.
The Answer to Judicial Tyranny
Judicial activism, after all, is the practice of judges ignoring the law and deciding cases based on their personal political views. With the federal judiciary focused more on legislating social policy than upholding the rule of law, Americans find themselves increasingly governed by men they did not elect and cannot remove from office.
********
How do WE THE PEOPLE force judges to decide cases based upon the Constitution and not on their personal views.
Who says that the cases were decided based on personal views and not the constitution?
Read the opinions, they are not based in law... the law is passion free, these opinions speak of intimacy & feelings..... total hogwash.
I have. The ACA ruling was based on the legislative intent of the law. And Obergefell was a predictable outcome of existing legal precedent. Where marriage is a right. And gays are protected under the Equal Protection Clause.
That you disagree with a ruling doesn't make it invalid.
SHUT THE FUCK UP
IF ****** INDIVIDUAL******* RIGHTS TO LIFE, LIBERTY, PROPERTY AND TO PURSUE HAPPINESS ARE SUPREME THEN THE ACA RULING HAS NOT SUPPORT IN OUR CONSTITUTION (1787).
.
And individual rights were upheld.
As for the ACA ruling, taxation authority is broad and well established. And the courts recognized the legislative intent of the law. Which is what they are supposed to do.
If either case, the ACA challenge or the marriage case, were decided based upon the personal views of the authors of the majority opinion, they would have come out the other way.The Answer to Judicial Tyranny
Judicial activism, after all, is the practice of judges ignoring the law and deciding cases based on their personal political views. With the federal judiciary focused more on legislating social policy than upholding the rule of law, Americans find themselves increasingly governed by men they did not elect and cannot remove from office.
********
How do WE THE PEOPLE force judges to decide cases based upon the Constitution and not on their personal views.
It was the intent of the Founding Fathers that the US be a Constitutional Republic where the rights of the individual were basic and fundamental - how do WE THE PEOPLE force the judges not to transgress upon INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS? The rights to LIFE, LIBERTY, PROPERTY and TO PURSUE HAPPINESS.
.
.
The Answer to Judicial Tyranny
Judicial activism, after all, is the practice of judges ignoring the law and deciding cases based on their personal political views. With the federal judiciary focused more on legislating social policy than upholding the rule of law, Americans find themselves increasingly governed by men they did not elect and cannot remove from office.
********
How do WE THE PEOPLE force judges to decide cases based upon the Constitution and not on their personal views.
It was the intent of the Founding Fathers that the US be a Constitutional Republic where the rights of the individual were basic and fundamental - how do WE THE PEOPLE force the judges not to transgress upon INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS? The rights to LIFE, LIBERTY, PROPERTY and TO PURSUE HAPPINESS.
.
.
The Answer to Judicial Tyranny
Judicial activism, after all, is the practice of judges ignoring the law and deciding cases based on their personal political views. With the federal judiciary focused more on legislating social policy than upholding the rule of law, Americans find themselves increasingly governed by men they did not elect and cannot remove from office.
********
How do WE THE PEOPLE force judges to decide cases based upon the Constitution and not on their personal views.
It was the intent of the Founding Fathers that the US be a Constitutional Republic where the rights of the individual were basic and fundamental - how do WE THE PEOPLE force the judges not to transgress upon INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS? The rights to LIFE, LIBERTY, PROPERTY and TO PURSUE HAPPINESS.
.
.
It's not a courts job to interpret anything or attempt to determine legislative intent. Their job is to apply law, period end of story.
If a law is overly broad or its intent ambiguous, the courts job is to set aside the law and leave it to the legislature to fix it, only a legislature has the authority to write, rewrite or amend a law. It's time we demand the courts just do their job and nothing else.
Sigh.The Answer to Judicial Tyranny
Judicial activism, after all, is the practice of judges ignoring the law and deciding cases based on their personal political views. With the federal judiciary focused more on legislating social policy than upholding the rule of law, Americans find themselves increasingly governed by men they did not elect and cannot remove from office.
********
How do WE THE PEOPLE force judges to decide cases based upon the Constitution and not on their personal views.
It was the intent of the Founding Fathers that the US be a Constitutional Republic where the rights of the individual were basic and fundamental - how do WE THE PEOPLE force the judges not to transgress upon INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS? The rights to LIFE, LIBERTY, PROPERTY and TO PURSUE HAPPINESS.
.
.
It's not a courts job to interpret anything or attempt to determine legislative intent. Their job is to apply law, period end of story.
If a law is overly broad or its intent ambiguous, the courts job is to set aside the law and leave it to the legislature to fix it, only a legislature has the authority to write, rewrite or amend a law. It's time we demand the courts just do their job and nothing else.
Sigh.The Answer to Judicial Tyranny
Judicial activism, after all, is the practice of judges ignoring the law and deciding cases based on their personal political views. With the federal judiciary focused more on legislating social policy than upholding the rule of law, Americans find themselves increasingly governed by men they did not elect and cannot remove from office.
********
How do WE THE PEOPLE force judges to decide cases based upon the Constitution and not on their personal views.
It was the intent of the Founding Fathers that the US be a Constitutional Republic where the rights of the individual were basic and fundamental - how do WE THE PEOPLE force the judges not to transgress upon INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS? The rights to LIFE, LIBERTY, PROPERTY and TO PURSUE HAPPINESS.
.
.
It's not a courts job to interpret anything or attempt to determine legislative intent. Their job is to apply law, period end of story.
If a law is overly broad or its intent ambiguous, the courts job is to set aside the law and leave it to the legislature to fix it, only a legislature has the authority to write, rewrite or amend a law. It's time we demand the courts just do their job and nothing else.
"At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, there were a number of references to judicial review. Fifteen delegates made statements about the power of the federal courts to review the constitutionality of laws, with all but two of them supporting the idea.[14]
Likewise, at the state ratifying conventions, over two dozen delegates in at least seven states indicated that under the Constitution, the federal courts would have the power to declare statutes unconstitutional.[15] Professors Saikrishna Prakash and John Yoo point out, with respect to the ratification of the Constitution, that "no scholar to date has identified even one participant in the ratification fight who argued that the Constitution did not authorize judicial review of Federal statutes. This silence in the face of the numerous comments on the other side is revealing."[16]
The concept of judicial review was discussed in The Federalist Papers. Alexander Hamilton asserted in Federalist No. 78 that under the Constitution, the federal courts would have not just the power, but the duty, to examine the constitutionality of statutes:
[T]he courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.[17]
The opponents to ratification, known as Anti-federalists, agreed that the federal courts would have the power to declare statutes unconstitutional, but were concerned that this would give the federal courts too much power. Robert Yates argued: "The supreme court then have a right, independent of the legislature, to give a construction to the constitution and every part of it, and there is no power provided in this system to correct their construction or do it away. If, therefore, the legislature pass any laws, inconsistent with the sense the judges put upon the constitution, they will declare it void."[18]"
The constitution was ratified, and the court was given the power to interpret statutes. Where ever you are getting your information from, stop and find a new source. This is NOT a cutting edge new concept. JFC I mean I don't like Citizens United, but its not because the scouts lacks the power of judicial review.
Marbury v. Madison - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Good God, the left is retarded.Read the opinions, they are not based in law... the law is passion free, these opinions speak of intimacy & feelings..... total hogwash.
I have. The ACA ruling was based on the legislative intent of the law. And Obergefell was a predictable outcome of existing legal precedent. Where marriage is a right. And gays are protected under the Equal Protection Clause.
That you disagree with a ruling doesn't make it invalid.
SHUT THE FUCK UP
IF ****** INDIVIDUAL******* RIGHTS TO LIFE, LIBERTY, PROPERTY AND TO PURSUE HAPPINESS ARE SUPREME THEN THE ACA RULING HAS NOT SUPPORT IN OUR CONSTITUTION (1787).
.
And individual rights were upheld.
As for the ACA ruling, taxation authority is broad and well established. And the courts recognized the legislative intent of the law. Which is what they are supposed to do.
BULLSHIT.
SINCE 1787 IT HAS BEEN KNOWN THAT THE NEITHER THE FEDERAL NOR THE STATE GOVERNMENT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO STEAL FROM "A" IN ORDER T SUPPORT "B" - WHEREIN "B" IS SKYLAR AND HER PARASITIC COHORTS.
.
Who says that ACA 'steals from A in order to support b'?
Other than you citing yourself, of course.
The Answer to Judicial Tyranny
Judicial activism, after all, is the practice of judges ignoring the law and deciding cases based on their personal political views. With the federal judiciary focused more on legislating social policy than upholding the rule of law, Americans find themselves increasingly governed by men they did not elect and cannot remove from office.
********
How do WE THE PEOPLE force judges to decide cases based upon the Constitution and not on their personal views.
It was the intent of the Founding Fathers that the US be a Constitutional Republic where the rights of the individual were basic and fundamental - how do WE THE PEOPLE force the judges not to transgress upon INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS? The rights to LIFE, LIBERTY, PROPERTY and TO PURSUE HAPPINESS.
.
.
The left has spent over 200 years looking for weak spots in the Constitution, chipping away at it's foundation in every way possible. The SC is one of their favorite ways to get what they want, as is blackmail. Clinton used FBI files to intimidate his opponents, Obama uses the IRS, FDR stacked the court with socialists as do ALL Democrats when they get the chance. Everything is fair to them if it achieves their objective, whether it's ethical or not. The only thing that matters is whether or not they can get away with it. Let's face it, the Constitution does not have enough safeguards to protect it from subversion from the left and they've made tremendous progress in dismantling it. They've exploited every negative human trait, greed, laziness, envy, etc. to garner votes and support without regard to the future of our country or the very things that have set us apart from the rest of the world. Our republic is being systematically destroyed as we sit around discussing Caitlin Jenner and other equally important issues.
