Obama stomps feet and throws tantrum aimed at SCOTUS

[jillian]

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.

Why would she waste time trying to explain something to somebody who has the IQ of an ameoba?

they love relying on that. it isn't relevant anyway. what stopped the count was the 5 to 4 decision. if he'd actually ever read Bush v Gore, he'd know that.

have you ever noticed that it's always the sub-literate rightwingnuts who think they can insult others' intelligence?

pathetic, isn't he?

and responses like his are why i know the imbeciles are just to be made fun of and not to be encouraged by actually giving credence to their posts.

 

[Full-Auto]

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.

Why would she waste time trying to explain something to somebody who has the IQ of an ameoba?

they love relying on that. it isn't relevant anyway. what stopped the count was the 5 to 4 decision. if he'd actually ever read Bush v Gore, he'd know that.

have you ever noticed that it's always the sub-literate rightwingnuts who think they can insult others' intelligence?

pathetic, isn't he?

What are you trying to pull? In that decision were a few votes, had you read the decision you would know that.

Pathetic arent you.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

Why would she waste time trying to explain something to somebody who has the IQ of an ameoba?

they love relying on that. it isn't relevant anyway. what stopped the count was the 5 to 4 decision. if he'd actually ever read Bush v Gore, he'd know that.

have you ever noticed that it's always the sub-literate rightwingnuts who think they can insult others' intelligence?

pathetic, isn't he?

and responses like his are why i know the imbeciles are just to be made fun of and not to be encouraged by actually giving credence to their posts.

The 7-2 vote ruled that the recount would be invalid under the equal protection clause because of the state non-uniform recount laws. That ended the election right there. Funny how liberals forget that vote.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Why would she waste time trying to explain something to somebody who has the IQ of an ameoba?

they love relying on that. it isn't relevant anyway. what stopped the count was the 5 to 4 decision. if he'd actually ever read Bush v Gore, he'd know that.

have you ever noticed that it's always the sub-literate rightwingnuts who think they can insult others' intelligence?

pathetic, isn't he?

and responses like his are why i know the imbeciles are just to be made fun of and not to be encouraged by actually giving credence to their posts.

The 7-2 vote ruled that the recount would be invalid under the equal protection clause because of the state non-uniform recount laws. That ended the election right there. Funny how liberals forget that vote.

You don't need facts when your supporting a "Cult Of personality"

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xxgRUyzgs0&ob=av3e]Living Colour - Cult Of Personality - YouTube[/ame]

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Why would she waste time trying to explain something to somebody who has the IQ of an ameoba?

If she were indeed speaking to an amoeba, she's be on inequal intellectual footing, with the amoeba having a significant advantage.

Buit hey! Since you think you're so smart, feel free to answer the question yourself.

Please let me know if you need any of the terms explained - you're sure to get hung up on "7" and "2".

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Why would she waste time trying to explain something to somebody who has the IQ of an ameoba?

they love relying on that. it isn't relevant anyway. what stopped the count was the 5 to 4 decision. if he'd actually ever read Bush v Gore, he'd know that.

have you ever noticed that it's always the sub-literate rightwingnuts who think they can insult others' intelligence?

pathetic, isn't he?

and responses like his are why i know the imbeciles are just to be made fun of and not to be encouraged by actually giving credence to their posts.

What's that?
Dodging the question?
Your cowardice is no surprise.

Fact of the matter is we both know you don't posess the means necessary to understand, much less address, the question.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why would she waste time trying to explain something to somebody who has the IQ of an ameoba?

they love relying on that. it isn't relevant anyway. what stopped the count was the 5 to 4 decision. if he'd actually ever read Bush v Gore, he'd know that.

have you ever noticed that it's always the sub-literate rightwingnuts who think they can insult others' intelligence?

pathetic, isn't he?

and responses like his are why i know the imbeciles are just to be made fun of and not to be encouraged by actually giving credence to their posts.

The 7-2 vote ruled that the recount would be invalid under the equal protection clause because of the state non-uniform recount laws. That ended the election right there. Funny how liberals forget that vote.

Apparently the relevance of the fact that the 7-2 decision invalidated the law which allows for the recounts escapes them.

How can you have a recount when there's no law that allows for such a thing?

And, as I asked, and as Jillian cannot answer, what remedy could be -leaglly- applied to the situation?

 

[regent]

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.

...or you could just read the Constitution and see where it was a power granted to the Supreme Court. The ruling just reinforced it.

Article three; section two: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States,

Yep it extends to all cases under this Constitution, that's under this Constitution, not to the Constitution. Courts do not change the law to fit their decisions, they fit their decisions to fit the law.
If this power was given to the Court in the Constitution why is Marbury one of the most important cases in our history? Why was their a great furor over the Marbury case, why were some of the founders so upset? Why didn't the founders simply write that power into the Constitution, with words "The court shall have the power to...?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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.

Please read about our system, articles 1, 2, and 3 of the constitution, and the seperation of powers.

Here are some links with just facts and no politically based opinions

Article 3, the judicial branch The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Concept of the seperation of powers Constitutional Topic: Separation of Powers - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

The constitutional system of checks and balances Constitutional Topic: Checks and Balances - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

I am not trying to insult you with this post, I am trying to help you learn what you are talking about so you don't live under false assumptions and make incorrect statements about it in the future.

 

[saveliberty]

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.

...or you could just read the Constitution and see where it was a power granted to the Supreme Court. The ruling just reinforced it.

Article three; section two: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States,

Yep it extends to all cases under this Constitution, that's under this Constitution, not to the Constitution. Courts do not change the law to fit their decisions, they fit their decisions to fit the law.
If this power was given to the Court in the Constitution why is Marbury one of the most important cases in our history? Why was their a great furor over the Marbury case, why were some of the founders so upset? Why didn't the founders simply write that power into the Constitution, with words "The court shall have the power to...?

Wrong. There was a furor because Federalists still existed and wanted to restrain the courts. The Supreme Court merely confirmed the powers they already held in this ruling. Nothing more. Seriously, educate yourself before entering discussions like this.

 

[Papageorgio]

they love relying on that. it isn't relevant anyway. what stopped the count was the 5 to 4 decision. if he'd actually ever read Bush v Gore, he'd know that.

have you ever noticed that it's always the sub-literate rightwingnuts who think they can insult others' intelligence?

pathetic, isn't he?

and responses like his are why i know the imbeciles are just to be made fun of and not to be encouraged by actually giving credence to their posts.

The 7-2 vote ruled that the recount would be invalid under the equal protection clause because of the state non-uniform recount laws. That ended the election right there. Funny how liberals forget that vote.

Apparently the relevance of the fact that the 7-2 decision invalidated the law which allows for the recounts escapes them.

How can you have a recount when there's no law that allows for such a thing?

And, as I asked, and as Jillian cannot answer, what remedy could be -leaglly- applied to the situation?

I have many questions the left can't seem to answer, they have a lot of opinions based on their feelings. But nothing of substance.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

Please read about our system, articles 1, 2, and 3 of the constitution, and the seperation of powers.

Here are some links with just facts and no politically based opinions

Article 3, the judicial branch The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Concept of the seperation of powers Constitutional Topic: Separation of Powers - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

The constitutional system of checks and balances Constitutional Topic: Checks and Balances - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

I am not trying to insult you with this post, I am trying to help you learn what you are talking about so you don't live under false assumptions and make incorrect statements about it in the future.

How many times have you asked him to o this and he fails to want to educate himself.

 

[regent]

...or you could just read the Constitution and see where it was a power granted to the Supreme Court. The ruling just reinforced it.

Article three; section two: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States,

Yep it extends to all cases under this Constitution, that's under this Constitution, not to the Constitution. Courts do not change the law to fit their decisions, they fit their decisions to fit the law.
If this power was given to the Court in the Constitution why is Marbury one of the most important cases in our history? Why was their a great furor over the Marbury case, why were some of the founders so upset? Why didn't the founders simply write that power into the Constitution, with words "The court shall have the power to...?

Wrong. There was a furor because Federalists still existed and wanted to restrain the courts. The Supreme Court merely confirmed the powers they already held in this ruling. Nothing more. Seriously, educate yourself before entering discussions like this.

The Federalists were in power in the Court for a long time. Marshall was a Federalist as was his Court during the Marbury case. The name Federalists was used because Federalists wanted to make the national government stronger, the antiFederalists wanted to make the States stronger. The Federalist Marshall Court ruled on a number of cases the decisions usually creating a stronger national government. Elementary history.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

...or you could just read the Constitution and see where it was a power granted to the Supreme Court. The ruling just reinforced it.

Article three; section two: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States,

Yep it extends to all cases under this Constitution, that's under this Constitution, not to the Constitution. Courts do not change the law to fit their decisions, they fit their decisions to fit the law.
If this power was given to the Court in the Constitution why is Marbury one of the most important cases in our history? Why was their a great furor over the Marbury case, why were some of the founders so upset? Why didn't the founders simply write that power into the Constitution, with words "The court shall have the power to...?

Because the power of judicial review and power to declare laws unconstitutional was a practice and principle that predated the Constitution and was already in place in the colonies when the Constitution was written.

 

[Listening]

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.

Why would she waste time trying to explain something to somebody who has the IQ of an ameoba?

they love relying on that. it isn't relevant anyway. what stopped the count was the 5 to 4 decision. if he'd actually ever read Bush v Gore, he'd know that.

have you ever noticed that it's always the sub-literate rightwingnuts who think they can insult others' intelligence?

pathetic, isn't he?

and responses like his are why i know the imbeciles are just to be made fun of and not to be encouraged by actually giving credence to their posts.

Just wanted to note that is why a lot of your posts sink with no response.

 

[regent]

...or you could just read the Constitution and see where it was a power granted to the Supreme Court. The ruling just reinforced it.

Article three; section two: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States,

Yep it extends to all cases under this Constitution, that's under this Constitution, not to the Constitution. Courts do not change the law to fit their decisions, they fit their decisions to fit the law.
If this power was given to the Court in the Constitution why is Marbury one of the most important cases in our history? Why was their a great furor over the Marbury case, why were some of the founders so upset? Why didn't the founders simply write that power into the Constitution, with words "The court shall have the power to...?

Because the power of judicial review and power to declare laws unconstitutional was a practice and principle that predated the Constitution and was already in place in the colonies when the Constitution was written.

Before the Constitution we had the Articles of Confederation, are you suggesting that the the Supreme Court under the Articles was given the power to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional?
The question is not whether states had the power or England had the power but where in the Constitution was that power to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional given to the Supreme Court? Where in today's Constituton, the one we are using at the present time, the one ratified in 1788 is that power to be found?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yep it extends to all cases under this Constitution, that's under this Constitution, not to the Constitution. Courts do not change the law to fit their decisions, they fit their decisions to fit the law.
If this power was given to the Court in the Constitution why is Marbury one of the most important cases in our history? Why was their a great furor over the Marbury case, why were some of the founders so upset? Why didn't the founders simply write that power into the Constitution, with words "The court shall have the power to...?

Because the power of judicial review and power to declare laws unconstitutional was a practice and principle that predated the Constitution and was already in place in the colonies when the Constitution was written.

Before the Constitution we had the Articles of Confederation, are you suggesting that the the Supreme Court under the Articles was given the power to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional?
The question is not whether states had the power or England had the power but where in the Constitution was that power to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional given to the Supreme Court? Where in today's Constituton, the one we are using at the present time, the one ratified in 1788 is that power to be found?

It is found in the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution and in the right and jurisdiction of the Court to rule on which law applies when 2 laws conflict. In Marbury vs. Madison, you had a law passed by Congress that conflicted with Article III of the Constitution. The Court ruled that the Constitution was superior to the legislation.

 

[Listening]

In Marbury vs. Madison, you had a law passed by Congress that conflicted with Article III of the Constitution. The Court ruled that the Constitution was superior to the legislation.

The Court, with John Marshall as Chief Justice, found firstly that Madison's refusal to deliver the commission was both illegal and remediable. Nonetheless, the Court stopped short of compelling Madison (by writ of mandamus) to hand over Marbury's commission, instead holding that the provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that enabled Marbury to bring his claim to the Supreme Court was itself unconstitutional, since it purported to extend the Court's original jurisdiction beyond that which Article III established. The petition was therefore denied.

From Wiki....

Not sure I 've heard it described the way did.

 

[daveman]

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.

Why would she waste time trying to explain something to somebody who has the IQ of an ameoba?

So, you can't answer the question either, huh?

 

[regent]

In Marbury vs. Madison, you had a law passed by Congress that conflicted with Article III of the Constitution. The Court ruled that the Constitution was superior to the legislation.

The Court, with John Marshall as Chief Justice, found firstly that Madison's refusal to deliver the commission was both illegal and remediable. Nonetheless, the Court stopped short of compelling Madison (by writ of mandamus) to hand over Marbury's commission, instead holding that the provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that enabled Marbury to bring his claim to the Supreme Court was itself unconstitutional, since it purported to extend the Court's original jurisdiction beyond that which Article III established. The petition was therefore denied.

From Wiki....

Not sure I 've heard it described the way did.

What Marbury was about is interesting but insignificant. The importance of that case was the decision that the Court had the power to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional. That still would be OK, but the question of the whole case is where did the Supreme Court find the power in the Constitution? And that question is still asked to this day, where in the Constitution is that power found.
The answer: it is not found in the Constitution. Perhaps the founders intended, meant, forgot, assumed or that most would agree, but most Constitutional scholars know that the Court went beyond the powers given to it in the Constitution. Americans now accept the idea that the Court has that power, but it is a power the Court gave itself one day in
1803.