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.
So the irony of the whole Supreme Court thing is that while the Court was never given the power to declare a law unconstitutonal, we accept the Courts power to do so simply because the Court said it had that power.
So every time a judge makes a decision he or she thinks is illegal, then they are right? Why have a congress or a president? just let the judiciary run the country...
Judge Feldmanowned stock in Transocean, the company that owned the Deepwater Horizon rig, as well as in other oil companies which could be affected by the moratorium.[8] Feldman's 2009 financial disclosure report [2] indicates that he had financial investments in BlackRock, the largest holder of BP stock. Additionally, Feldman held stock in Exxon-Mobil, a company that operates one of the 33 deepwater rigs.
Hornbeck Offshore Services LLC v. Salazar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[edit]
So every time a judge makes a decision he or she thinks is illegal, then they are right? Why have a congress or a president? just let the judiciary run the country...
Judge Feldmanowned stock in Transocean, the company that owned the Deepwater Horizon rig, as well as in other oil companies which could be affected by the moratorium.[8] Feldman's 2009 financial disclosure report [2] indicates that he had financial investments in BlackRock, the largest holder of BP stock. Additionally, Feldman held stock in Exxon-Mobil, a company that operates one of the 33 deepwater rigs.
Hornbeck Offshore Services LLC v. Salazar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[edit]
Sounds like a recall...but you use it to justify weakening the institution.
Go figure.
Ann Coulter could kick David Letterman's ass any day of the week in a battle of wits.
Sounds like a recall...but you use it to justify weakening the institution.
Go figure.
Ann Coulter could kick David Letterman's ass any day of the week in a battle of wits.
So you think it OK for a judge to hear a case that he has a vested financial interest in? Of course you do. You righties love no regulations on anything - whether it be water or Wall St - just let all the rich and powerful ride roughshod over every one else..
While Letterman is no Einstein, Coulter makes him look like Stephen Hawking when it comes to intellect...
Lieberman was adamant that the best way to solve the election mystery was through the courts. His words. So that was the way it was handled. Now the revisionist liberals, pissed off because they didn't win, bitch about the courts.1 No, the people of the United States decided and installed the American President you claim the Supreme Court did. The SCOTUS merely agreed the vote in Florida would stand after 3 counts in favor of the same candidate. That's all they did and you know that's all they did.He's absolutely right.
Over the last decade the Supreme Court:
1-Decided and installed an American President.
2-Decided that private corporations can take over the land of a private citizen to further their own profit.
3-Decided that a state's laws prohibiting the keeping of hand guns went "to far".
4-Overturned a century's worth of election finance reform.
5-Decided there was a "time limit" on when an employee can bring a case against an employer for unfair wage discrimination
6-Decided that a Vice President's meetings with private corporations to determine public policy was secret and not subject to review.
7-Decided not to hear cases concerning indefinite detention.
8-Decided that police can strip search private citizens no matter what the cause.
It's a radical right wing court involved in judicial activism and legislating from the bench. It's been over stepping it's constitutional boundries for some time now.
Good on the President for pointing that out.
2 Eminent domain is a fact of life. Cities grow, streets have to be widened, people get bought out cheap. You just pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and start over as best you can when it happens to you. It happened to my business as well as a piece of my property. I have to say it wasn't pleasant, but in the end, my community benefitted from it, and that made all the difference in the world to me.
3 It's their job to defend the Second Amendment. It's part and parcel of the Constitution.
4 Plugged loopholes against cheaters at the polls? aw, I'm hurtin' all over.
5. Other people get 2 years to settle money disputes. After that it's bye-bye money. Why divide citizens into classes and give one class a privilege over another as a consequence. That is sounding like the SCOTUS again supported the laws of the land.
6 That's right. Those meetings were to benefit people who employed boatloads of people at very good wages. Government function of the executive branch does not need to be impeded by the judicial branch when fairness is around, and that's all there is to it.
7 Case against indefinite detention was turned away? Well, the consequences of the crime may have been another got an indefinite detention wrongfully, on the other side.
8 The police can check to make sure a killer isn't hiding a set of brass knuckles in his rectum. Aw, too bad.
I really hate debating the good-looking studs around here ...
no becki, your number 1 is incorrect. the SCOTUS stopped the count. this specifically went against precedent which always deferred to the highest court of a state making decisions about that state's election laws. so that is not "all that they did". the decision is so bad that for the only time i know of in the history of the high court, they said the decision could not be used as precedent.
The neutrality of your article is cautioned right in the source Dr. Grump, nice. Many times stocks are held within a mutual fund which I rarely know the exact content. Your sweeping generalizations say far more of your hatred and blind partisanship. Hack away.
If the was a conflict of interest, there should have been a complaint lodged.
But you don't walk away from an institution (and then turn around and lecture the same institution on their duties....especially when you are dead wrong.
Letterman is no Einstein...that is true.
That Coulter would wipe up the floor with his ugly mug...is also true.
Letterman would need a wheelchair when she was through.
Lieberman was adamant that the best way to solve the election mystery was through the courts. His words. So that was the way it was handled. Now the revisionist liberals, pissed off because they didn't win, bitch about the courts.
Can't have it both ways, sweet lumps.
Yahoo! News
US President Barack Obama on Monday challenged the "unelected" Supreme Court not to take the "extraordinary" and "unprecedented" step of overturning his landmark health reform law.
Obama gonna lose his security blanket or binkey on this one?
No. There is judicial review.
Sometimes it crosses the border into the realm of activism, however.
And Roe v. Wade is on no actual "ground" whatsoever.
The prospective voiding of ObamaCare would be, however, the valid rejection on proper Constitutional grounds of a lawless law.
So how is it, that the supposedly Constitution Loving Heritage Foundation could have come up with a plan as an alternative to a single payer system (which the RW Justices admitted would be PERFECTLY constitutional) that was blatantly unconstitutional?
Did they just not notice? Or did they just not notice until Obama did it?
What difference does it make?
A bad idea (belatedly recognized as such) is no less a bad idea regardless of which people or groups first embraced it.
I mean, you can't actually be claiming that you've never had what you considered a really "good" idea that you later realized was actually a pretty fucking poor one.
According to Sallow, in her desperate scramble to argue that The Obama did NOT openly lie ~52% is a "strong majority".
5 of 9 is 55.56%, and so is, by her standard, stronger than a strong majority.
SO... those that do not belive that The Obama lied w/ this "strong majority" claim have no standing to complain about the 'partisan' nature of a 5-4 decision.
It doesn't matter if it was 80% who voted for it in the congress if the law is not constitutional the supreme court's JOB is to strike it down.
And as I've been pointing out..the court's view of the Constitution has been arbitary and partisan. If they keep this up..other branches of the government have the right to change the rules of the judicary. Such as making recusals mandatory as they are in the lower courts. They can also increase the number of judges in the SCOTUS. And they are inviting things like that to happen.
It doesn't matter if it was 80% who voted for it in the congress if the law is not constitutional the supreme court's JOB is to strike it down.
And as I've been pointing out..the court's view of the Constitution has been arbitary and partisan. If they keep this up..other branches of the government have the right to change the rules of the judicary. Such as making recusals mandatory as they are in the lower courts. They can also increase the number of judges in the SCOTUS. And they are inviting things like that to happen.
Has it been the whole court or just 3 or 4 justices on one side?
1 No, the people of the United States decided and installed the American President you claim the Supreme Court did. The SCOTUS merely agreed the vote in Florida would stand after 3 counts in favor of the same candidate. That's all they did and you know that's all they did.He's absolutely right.
Over the last decade the Supreme Court:
1-Decided and installed an American President.
2-Decided that private corporations can take over the land of a private citizen to further their own profit.
3-Decided that a state's laws prohibiting the keeping of hand guns went "to far".
4-Overturned a century's worth of election finance reform.
5-Decided there was a "time limit" on when an employee can bring a case against an employer for unfair wage discrimination
6-Decided that a Vice President's meetings with private corporations to determine public policy was secret and not subject to review.
7-Decided not to hear cases concerning indefinite detention.
8-Decided that police can strip search private citizens no matter what the cause.
It's a radical right wing court involved in judicial activism and legislating from the bench. It's been over stepping it's constitutional boundries for some time now.
Good on the President for pointing that out.
2 Eminent domain is a fact of life. Cities grow, streets have to be widened, people get bought out cheap. You just pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and start over as best you can when it happens to you. It happened to my business as well as a piece of my property. I have to say it wasn't pleasant, but in the end, my community benefitted from it, and that made all the difference in the world to me.
3 It's their job to defend the Second Amendment. It's part and parcel of the Constitution.
4 Plugged loopholes against cheaters at the polls? aw, I'm hurtin' all over.
5. Other people get 2 years to settle money disputes. After that it's bye-bye money. Why divide citizens into classes and give one class a privilege over another as a consequence. That is sounding like the SCOTUS again supported the laws of the land.
6 That's right. Those meetings were to benefit people who employed boatloads of people at very good wages. Government function of the executive branch does not need to be impeded by the judicial branch when fairness is around, and that's all there is to it.
7 Case against indefinite detention was turned away? Well, the consequences of the crime may have been another got an indefinite detention wrongfully, on the other side.
8 The police can check to make sure a killer isn't hiding a set of brass knuckles in his rectum. Aw, too bad.
I really hate debating the good-looking studs around here ...
no becki, your number 1 is incorrect. the SCOTUS stopped the count. this specifically went against precedent which always deferred to the highest court of a state making decisions about that state's election laws. so that is not "all that they did". the decision is so bad that for the only time i know of in the history of the high court, they said the decision could not be used as precedent.
The Queen Mother of the Useful Idiots has spoken!
Rather than spout your usual ignorant, bigoted, partisan BS, why don't you open up your dime-store education and explain to us, in specific terms, how the court got their 7-2 Equal Protection decision wrong, and then explain to us, again, in specific terms, exactly what remedy the court could have -legally- applied.
