This Guy Is Smarter Than Any Of Us Recognized!

[alang1216]

The judicial decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the same way Red and Green lights are treated in Rome....as merely a suggestion.

So saith the Constitution.

So you don't think the Supreme Court has the authority to strike down laws it deems unconstitutional? Does anyone else have that authority?

The Congress can ban all guns not held by a militia? The president can shut down newspapers he doesn't like?

You say you love the Constitution but you'd make it just a worthless piece of paper. You must really hate America.

 

[alang1216]

See the disadvantage you live under, never having read a book???

If you're an example of someone who reads books, I fail to see any benefit. Reading is good but thinking for yourself is even better. You should try it sometime as you're completely unable to answer even simple questions.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The judicial decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the same way Red and Green lights are treated in Rome....as merely a suggestion.

So saith the Constitution.

So you don't think the Supreme Court has the authority to strike down laws it deems unconstitutional? Does anyone else have that authority?

The Congress can ban all guns not held by a militia? The president can shut down newspapers he doesn't like?

You say you love the Constitution but you'd make it just a worthless piece of paper. You must really hate America.

"So you don't think the Supreme Court has the authority to strike down laws it deems unconstitutional?"

Can you find such a quote of mine?

Please just go away, fool.

 

[PoliticalChic]

8. The twin evils of caselaw, and stare decisis—that judges should respect legal precedents- are the pillars upon which Progressive jurisprudence rests.
And the reason our judicial system has failed.



“…. stare decisis is what the left-of-center justices are most fervently protecting. That certainly seems to have been Justice Stephen Breyer’s prime concern in dissenting in May from Thomas’s majority opinion in Franchise Tax Board v. Hyatt, a technical tax-jurisdiction case notable chiefly for its overturning of a Court precedent. “Today’s decision can only cause one to wonder which cases the Court will overrule next,” Breyer worried, perhaps concerned about all those Court decisions of dubious constitutionality that Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats have in mind when they question Supreme Court nominees about their fidelity to such supposed “settled law” as Roe v. Wade.


[Clarence] Thomas, the Court’s most principled originalist and arguably our era’s greatest jurist, used one June decision, Gamble v. United States, to pen a long opinion outlining his own view of stare decisis—

In America’s legal system, he wrote, the “Constitution, federal statutes, and treaties are the law.” Judicial decisions take a distant second place, and “if the Court encounters a decision that is demonstrably erroneous—i.e., one that is not a permissible interpretation of the text—the Court should correct the error. . . . When faced with a demonstrably erroneous precedent, my rule is simple: We should not follow it.”

…stare decisis is a real evil, in that it “both disregards the supremacy of the Constitution and perpetuates a usurpation of the legislative power,” since a flawed Court decision illegitimately makes new law instead of merely interpreting what the law is.” https://www.city-journal.org/supreme-court-moves-right



The “Constitution, federal statutes, and treaties are the law.”

Not since Franklin Roosevelt:
In July 5, 1935, in a letter to Representative Samuel B. Hill of Washington, the President manifested his contempt for the Constitution. Hill was chairman of the subcommittee studying the Guffey-Vinson bill to regulate the coal industry: the purpose of the legislation was to re-establish, for the coal industry, the NRA code system which the Supreme Court had unanimously declared unconstitutional. Roosevelt wrote: "I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the legislation.

This was the same Roosevelt who had sworn an oath on his 300 year old family Bible, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution"

 

[alang1216]

"So you don't think the Supreme Court has the authority to strike down laws it deems unconstitutional?"

Can you find such a quote of mine?

Please just go away, fool.

Here you go, your quote from #40:

"The judicial decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the same way Red and Green lights are treated in Rome....as merely a suggestion."​

 

[PoliticalChic]

"So you don't think the Supreme Court has the authority to strike down laws it deems unconstitutional?"

Can you find such a quote of mine?

Please just go away, fool.

Here you go, your quote from #40:

"The judicial decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the same way Red and Green lights are treated in Rome....as merely a suggestion."​

No, that is your usual sort of lie.
This is what you said:
"So you don't think the Supreme Court has the authority to strike down laws it deems unconstitutional?"

This is what I said.
"The judicial decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the same way Red and Green lights are treated in Rome....as merely a suggestion."


I said earlier that this thread would be beyond your meager intellectual ability....and now you've gone and proven it.



If I threw you a going-away party.......would you?

 

[alang1216]

"So you don't think the Supreme Court has the authority to strike down laws it deems unconstitutional?"

Can you find such a quote of mine?

Please just go away, fool.

Here you go, your quote from #40:

"The judicial decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the same way Red and Green lights are treated in Rome....as merely a suggestion."​

No, that is your usual sort of lie.
This is what you said:
"So you don't think the Supreme Court has the authority to strike down laws it deems unconstitutional?"

This is what I said.
"The judicial decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the same way Red and Green lights are treated in Rome....as merely a suggestion."


I said earlier that this thread would be beyond your meager intellectual ability....and now you've gone and proven it.



If I threw you a going-away party.......would you?

I must really have you in a corner if all you can do is cut and paste my own post back to me. I know exactly what it proves do you?

Please clarify. Can a law be struck down (as unconstitutional) AND still exist but as a "suggestion"? What does that even mean? Please explain and THEN insult me, don't just insult me.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"So you don't think the Supreme Court has the authority to strike down laws it deems unconstitutional?"

Can you find such a quote of mine?

Please just go away, fool.

Here you go, your quote from #40:

"The judicial decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the same way Red and Green lights are treated in Rome....as merely a suggestion."​

No, that is your usual sort of lie.
This is what you said:
"So you don't think the Supreme Court has the authority to strike down laws it deems unconstitutional?"

This is what I said.
"The judicial decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the same way Red and Green lights are treated in Rome....as merely a suggestion."


I said earlier that this thread would be beyond your meager intellectual ability....and now you've gone and proven it.



If I threw you a going-away party.......would you?

I must really have you in a corner if all you can do is cut and paste my own post back to me. I know exactly what it proves do you?

Please clarify. Can a law be struck down (as unconstitutional) AND still exist but as a "suggestion"? What does that even mean? Please explain and THEN insult me, don't just insult me.

Please get lost.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Here's the argument from a Progressive Supreme Court Justice:


9. Progressive/Leftist Justices believer they have the right, the obligation, of writing law from the bench to bring forth their version of morality. It’s that ‘Social Justice’ thing.



Justice Wm. Brennan, jr…1985 Georgetown speech supported the “transformative purpose” of the Constitution, in which he argued for an “aspiration to social justice, brotherhood, and human dignity…”
Brennan falls back on the idea that moderns should not be bound by “a world that is dead and gone.” Of course, there are lots of laws on the books today by folks dead and gone: Social Security laws, or the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or the Sixteenth Amendment imposing an income tax, and all nine justices who participated in Roe v. Wade are now dead.


Would Brennan suggest ignoring any of these….or does he simply wish to allow judges to pick and choose which laws written by dead people we are to be bound by? No, this ‘transformative’ view would simply allow justices to erase parts of the Constitution.


Brennan’s view is that those of us in the present generation are better able to judge than our benighted ancestors. Really? The American Constitution has survived for two centuries, the oldest and first such document in existence, and has inspired countless copies around the world. Through it we remain the freest and most fortunate people on earth.

Finally, the ‘transformative’ view raises the level of generality of the Constitution in order to justify the left-wing outcomes that progressives want. Brennan identifies the Bill of Rights as protecting human dignity, then asks whether the death penalty, for example, is compatible with human dignity. A perfect example of sophistry, and lawyerly sleight of hand. The text of the Constitution does not speak vaguely of human dignity…but does specifically of freedom of speech, and of the press, about unreasonable searches and seizures, and about property not being taken capriciously. So, Brennan twists the ideas to produce what he deems good consequences. By that endeavor “the rule of law and not of men” becomes impossible.

See "Originalism: A Quarter-Century of Debate,"
by Justice Antonin Scalia (Author), Steven G. Calabresi (Editor)

 

[alang1216]

Please get lost.

Translation: I, PoliticalChic, have lost.

 

[PoliticalChic]

10. "Charles Pierce at Esquire understands what is happening, and he is fuming. Pierce writes about how The Conservative Effort to Salt the Judiciary With Larval Scalias Is Close to Complete:

While everyone was looking elsewhere, and wondering about their immigration status in the lands of their ancestors, the administration* and Mitch McConnell had their white-guys judicial assembly line humming….


The conservative effort to salt the federal judiciary with larval Scalias is devastatingly close to completion.
Make no mistake, This would have happened if any of the Republican candidates had been elected in 2016. It may be the only thing keeping a lot of Republicans on the Trump Train. You are going to be hearing from both these guys long after the president* is spinning on a spit in hell. Depend on that.

“Larval Scalias”? Let’s hope so, but as we’ve seen so many times, Republican-appointee does not equal conservative, and conservative at the start does not mean conservative forever.

But you’ve got to start somewhere, and “larval Scalias” is not a bad place to start."
Liberal nightmare: Takeover of federal judiciary by "larval Scalias is devastatingly close to completion"




I don’t recall Trump trumpeting how he was going to make the judiciary conservative…..yet….” The conservative effort to salt the federal judiciary with larval Scalias is devastatingly close to completion.”




Must be what the Founders meant when they used references to ‘Divine’ in D of I…
1)in first paragraph ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’ 2) next paragraph ‘endowed by their Creator,” 3) Supreme Judge of the world, and 4) ‘divine’ Providence, last paragraph, …and I suggested that Trump may be ‘inspired.’

Or….perhaps Trump came up with the plan on his own.

 

[PoliticalChic]

11. But Progressive Judges and Justices are still around....and they believe their views supplant the Constitution.

… what of the judges and Justices not part of Trump’s rejuvenation of the judiciary?



For them “…an effort of self-examination and independent thought it takes to free oneself from such mental servitude, even if one is a judge. All those years of law school, all that effort in absorbing the sometimes-crackpot theories of such still-revered justices as Felix Frankfurter or Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., not to mention the much wilder living-Constitution and social-justice law professors’ commentary upon them, all those hours cramming for exams in constitutional-law courses that, as Justice Thomas recalls, didn’t even assign the whole Constitution!

So getting back to the Framers’ Constitution—as perfected by the Bill of Rights, the Reconstruction Amendments, and the Nineteenth Amendment—and seeing the luminous modernity of its guarantee of liberty and its expectation of self-reliance, takes an immense effort of intellect, erudition, and imagination. But the Court is getting there.” The Court Moves Right



And if they can’t change……find another line of work.

 

[Ringtone]

That guy, Trump.
Or, maybe he’s inspired.

Seems he answered this question: how to leave an indelible trajectory for America?


Well, not just by winning the presidency, or reforming the economy....but by reforming the judiciary!
Tweets notwithstanding, Trump didn’t brag that this was his plan….maybe is most important secret plan.


1."By the numbers overall (including Phipps), Trump has nominated and had confirmed:

Supreme Court: 2

Courts of Appeals: 43

District/Specialty Courts: 85


Trump is running out of Court of Appeals vacancies to fill, in part a result of his focus on filling those critical slots:

Current and known future vacancies: 141

Courts of Appeals: 6

District/Specialty Courts*: 135

Pending nominees for current and known future vacancies: 58

Courts of Appeals: 2

District/Specialty Courts*: 56"
Liberal nightmare: Takeover of federal judiciary by "larval Scalias is devastatingly close to completion"



2.“…the advent of Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh has reshaped the Supreme Court enough to stop such despondent talk. While the decisions announced at the end of the Court’s term in June, marking the first year with both new justices on the bench, don’t amount to a stampede toward the Right, they display a wholesome focus on what the Constitution and statutes actually say.
The Nine are “redirecting the judge’s interpretive task back to its roots, away from open-ended policy appeals and speculation about legislative intentions and toward the traditional tools of interpretation that judges have employed for centuries to elucidate the law’s original public meaning,” Gorsuch explained in a June opinion. “Today, it is even said that we judges are, to one degree or another, ‘all textualists now.’ ” And that’s already a quiet revolution.” The Court Moves Right


This would be the greatest gift any President could provide.


3.Consider the opposite view, in the words of Chief Justice Hughes:
“The Constitution is what the judges say it is.”

Correct? Or hubris?

And this is precisely why I resist complaints about Mitch McConnell. To be sure, he is not always the most reliable conservative as some, including me, would that he be. But he is a master political operative at the legislative level and has wholeheartedly supported and efficiently managed the appointment of Trump's nominees from the jump.

 

[PoliticalChic]

That guy, Trump.
Or, maybe he’s inspired.

Seems he answered this question: how to leave an indelible trajectory for America?


Well, not just by winning the presidency, or reforming the economy....but by reforming the judiciary!
Tweets notwithstanding, Trump didn’t brag that this was his plan….maybe is most important secret plan.


1."By the numbers overall (including Phipps), Trump has nominated and had confirmed:

Supreme Court: 2

Courts of Appeals: 43

District/Specialty Courts: 85


Trump is running out of Court of Appeals vacancies to fill, in part a result of his focus on filling those critical slots:

Current and known future vacancies: 141

Courts of Appeals: 6

District/Specialty Courts*: 135

Pending nominees for current and known future vacancies: 58

Courts of Appeals: 2

District/Specialty Courts*: 56"
Liberal nightmare: Takeover of federal judiciary by "larval Scalias is devastatingly close to completion"



2.“…the advent of Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh has reshaped the Supreme Court enough to stop such despondent talk. While the decisions announced at the end of the Court’s term in June, marking the first year with both new justices on the bench, don’t amount to a stampede toward the Right, they display a wholesome focus on what the Constitution and statutes actually say.
The Nine are “redirecting the judge’s interpretive task back to its roots, away from open-ended policy appeals and speculation about legislative intentions and toward the traditional tools of interpretation that judges have employed for centuries to elucidate the law’s original public meaning,” Gorsuch explained in a June opinion. “Today, it is even said that we judges are, to one degree or another, ‘all textualists now.’ ” And that’s already a quiet revolution.” The Court Moves Right


This would be the greatest gift any President could provide.


3.Consider the opposite view, in the words of Chief Justice Hughes:
“The Constitution is what the judges say it is.”

Correct? Or hubris?

And this is precisely why I reject Republican complaints about Mitch McConnell. To be sure, he is not always the most reliable conservative as some, including me, would that he be. But he is a master political operative at the legislative level and has wholeheartedly supported and efficiently managed the appointment of Trump's nominees from the jump.

I fully agree with every word, and every sentiment, in this post.

Watch the next post planned for this thread.

 

[PoliticalChic]

12. “McConnell at Trump Rally: My Motto Is Leave No Judge Vacancy Behind!
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) told a roaring crowd at President Trump's rally in Lexington that he will work to ensure there will be no federal judge vacancy for Democrats to fill.

… working together, we are changing the federal courts forever," he continued. "Nobody's done more to change the court system in the history of our country than Donald Trump. And Mr. President, we're going to keep on doing it. My motto is leave no vacancy behind."



"So President Obama left Mitch and me and Rand and all of us, he left 142 openings for judges," Trump then told the crowd. "You are not supposed to allow any. You don't do that. You know, they say the most important thing a president can do is federal judges right, including the Supreme Court, obviously....So Mitch and I and Rand would like to thank very much President Obama, because nobody has ever been so generous in their life."


… the Senate had confirmed 59 judges under McConnell's leadership in 2019. Since Trump has been president, the Senate has confirmed 99 judges.” McConnell at Trump Rally: My Motto Is Leave No Judge Vacancy Behind!





Can you imagine….a conservative judiciary????

The Left would be stymied for decades!!!!

 

[Ringtone]

Trump and his tribe will need the courts to destroy American democracy, that is clear, even as his administration loses a few rulings. Should he win in 2020 then Americans will need to worry as his crimes of collusion with foreign entities will seem minor. Fox today is a tool of the state, when the judiciary becomes a tool of the state, American exceptionalism is lost. Americans seem to fail to understand that state power is often for those who pay and when tax policy supports them they are happy regardless of consequences.

"What is patriotism? Let us begin with what patriotism is not. It is not patriotic to dodge the draft and to mock war heroes and their families. It is not patriotic to discriminate against active-duty members of the armed forces in one's companies, or to campaign to keep disabled veterans away from one's property. It is not patriotic to compare one's search for sexual partners in New York with the military service in Vietnam that one has dodged. It is not patriotic to avoid paying taxes, especially when American working families do pay. It is not patriotic to ask those working, taxpaying American families to finance one's own presidential campaign, and then to spend their contributions in one's own companies. It is not patriotic to admire foreign dictators. It is not patriotic to cultivate a relationship with Muammar Gaddafi; or to say that Bashar al-Assad and Vladimir Putin are superior leaders. It is not patriotic to call upon Russia to intervene in an American presidential election. It is not patriotic to cite Russian propaganda at rallies." Timothy Snyder

On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century by Timothy Snyder

The German example.

First Letter to All Judges

"From 1942 until the end of the war in 1945, the Nazi court system became more and more a state vehicle for injustice and persecution. A series of "Letters to all Judges" presented the state's position on political questions and on the legal interpretation of Nazi laws. The first of these "letters" concerned the application of the death penalty."

Clownworld Warning!

You have entered the mind of midcan5, a local Marxist lunatic, where the defense of the classical liberalism of natural and constitutional law = fascism, and Marxist propaganda and jackbooted, statist gibberish = liberty.

Black is white. Up is down. Castro was a freedom fighter.

 

[PoliticalChic]

13. Attention Democrats:

“While you were focused on Impeachment, Trump continued to transform the federal judiciary
This seismic shift in the composition of the federal judiciary is getting almost no current mainstream media coverage because all the oxygen is being taken up with Democrats’ impeachment efforts.



This has implications beyond total numbers, Trump is flipping or is on the verge of flipping Circuits:

Of the judges confirmed under Trump, 43 are appeals court judges — a very impressive number. In fact, this is 14 more appeals court judges than George W. Bush, 16 more than Clinton, and 22 more than Obama had confirmed at the same point in their presidencies.

Additionally, Trump has flipped the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and the Virgin Islands). For those unfamiliar with the term, “flipping a circuit” means creating a majority of judges on a circuit court who were nominated by presidents from the same party.

Trump is also on the cusp of flipping the Second Circuit of Appeals (which covers New York, Vermont, and Connecticut) and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers Georgia, Florida, and Alabama). Trump has even made notable gains on the notoriously liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers Alaska, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, California, Nevada, Arizona, Hawaii, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands) where there are now 16 Democrat-appointed judges and 12 Republican-appointed judges with one vacancy.

This seismic shift in the composition of the federal judiciary is getting almost no current mainstream media coverage because all the oxygen is being taken up with Democrats’ impeachment efforts.

Slowly, surely, Trump is creating a legacy that will last a generation.”
While you were focused on Impeachment, Trump continued to transform the federal judiciary




You never saw where Trump was going, did you.

“Do not underestimate the 'power of underestimation'. They can't stop you, if they don't see you coming.”
― Izey Victoria Odiase

 

[Voiceover]

13. Attention Democrats:

“While you were focused on Impeachment, Trump continued to transform the federal judiciary
This seismic shift in the composition of the federal judiciary is getting almost no current mainstream media coverage because all the oxygen is being taken up with Democrats’ impeachment efforts.



This has implications beyond total numbers, Trump is flipping or is on the verge of flipping Circuits:

Of the judges confirmed under Trump, 43 are appeals court judges — a very impressive number. In fact, this is 14 more appeals court judges than George W. Bush, 16 more than Clinton, and 22 more than Obama had confirmed at the same point in their presidencies.

Additionally, Trump has flipped the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and the Virgin Islands). For those unfamiliar with the term, “flipping a circuit” means creating a majority of judges on a circuit court who were nominated by presidents from the same party.

Trump is also on the cusp of flipping the Second Circuit of Appeals (which covers New York, Vermont, and Connecticut) and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers Georgia, Florida, and Alabama). Trump has even made notable gains on the notoriously liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers Alaska, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, California, Nevada, Arizona, Hawaii, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands) where there are now 16 Democrat-appointed judges and 12 Republican-appointed judges with one vacancy.

This seismic shift in the composition of the federal judiciary is getting almost no current mainstream media coverage because all the oxygen is being taken up with Democrats’ impeachment efforts.

Slowly, surely, Trump is creating a legacy that will last a generation.”
While you were focused on Impeachment, Trump continued to transform the federal judiciary




You never saw where Trump was going, did you.

“Do not underestimate the 'power of underestimation'. They can't stop you, if they don't see you coming.”
― Izey Victoria Odiase

You , Political Chic , aced it . The unicorn chasing left that sees only a vision of what it's been taught by the new Marxist in the educational system and it's lackeys in the media have become so armored by the big plan of taking down the Capitalist Orange man that beat up their protected crook Hilliary that they fail to see what President Trump has actually accomplished . All the hard work the Marxist Democrats put in rigging elections , redistricting Congress , and using servers so our enemies can destroy us has been twarted . The idiots on the left can't even determine truth anymore and that what makes the situation so dangerous . These people can't see the truth anymore , this is a lost generation that is easily led by globalist and false promises .

 

[jasonnfree]

13. Attention Democrats:

“While you were focused on Impeachment, Trump continued to transform the federal judiciary
This seismic shift in the composition of the federal judiciary is getting almost no current mainstream media coverage because all the oxygen is being taken up with Democrats’ impeachment efforts.



This has implications beyond total numbers, Trump is flipping or is on the verge of flipping Circuits:

Of the judges confirmed under Trump, 43 are appeals court judges — a very impressive number. In fact, this is 14 more appeals court judges than George W. Bush, 16 more than Clinton, and 22 more than Obama had confirmed at the same point in their presidencies.

Additionally, Trump has flipped the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and the Virgin Islands). For those unfamiliar with the term, “flipping a circuit” means creating a majority of judges on a circuit court who were nominated by presidents from the same party.

Trump is also on the cusp of flipping the Second Circuit of Appeals (which covers New York, Vermont, and Connecticut) and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers Georgia, Florida, and Alabama). Trump has even made notable gains on the notoriously liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers Alaska, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, California, Nevada, Arizona, Hawaii, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands) where there are now 16 Democrat-appointed judges and 12 Republican-appointed judges with one vacancy.

This seismic shift in the composition of the federal judiciary is getting almost no current mainstream media coverage because all the oxygen is being taken up with Democrats’ impeachment efforts.

Slowly, surely, Trump is creating a legacy that will last a generation.”
While you were focused on Impeachment, Trump continued to transform the federal judiciary




You never saw where Trump was going, did you.

“Do not underestimate the 'power of underestimation'. They can't stop you, if they don't see you coming.”
― Izey Victoria Odiase

You , Political Chic , aced it . The unicorn chasing left that sees only a vision of what it's been taught by the new Marxist in the educational system and it's lackeys in the media have become so armored by the big plan of taking down the Capitalist Orange man that beat up their protected crook Hilliary that they fail to see what President Trump has actually accomplished . All the hard work the Marxist Democrats put in rigging elections , redistricting Congress , and using servers so our enemies can destroy us has been twarted . The idiots on the left can't even determine truth anymore and that what makes the situation so dangerous . These people can't see the truth anymore , this is a lost generation that is easily led by globalist and false promises .

'their protected crook Hilliary' you say. Tons of accusations about how corrupt democrats are but the dems have a near perfect record and the same goes for hillary. This means, no convictions dummy. Not even an indictment. It's always the republicans being convicted, going to jail, etc. This latest republican prez reads like a mafia story with his 'associates' in prison or waiting trial. He's now trying to wiggle out of bribing a foreign president. This crap has been ongoing since he entered the white house. Several republican congress critters in trouble like duncan hunter who follows in the footsteps in the same district that duke cunningham had, who's already done his prison time. Even presidential candidate mccain was in trouble in the keating scandal. Too long a list with these corrupt republican turds going back to the nixon era, but a dishonorable mention for the child molesting republican hero and ex con dennis hastert. In closing let's not forget the extremely corrupt reagan bunch with the most convictions and indictments of any president, as well as trading arms for hostages with Iranians. No, democrats are basically honest and hard working while republicans are the low life criminal scum with a large number of some very stupid followers and worshipers.

 

[Borillar]

The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.

Without the Judicial Branch there is nothing to protect or enforce the Constitution. The legislature can pass any law, e.g., outlawing ALL guns, and the president can pretty much do whatever he or she wishes, e.g., shut down Congress. The US would cease to exist as a democracy, much to the glee of many.

"Without the Judicial Branch there is nothing to protect or enforce the Constitution."


I can't believe how stupid you are.

The Court doesn't enforce anything.

President Andrew Jackson reportedly responded when the court disagreed with him: "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it! ..

I didn't realize you were an anarchist too. So if New York decides to outlaw ALL guns, you wouldn't want anything to stop them?

Did you want to point out where the Constitution provides for.....judicial review, or enforcement by the judiciary of their decisions???

Both were your claims......or are you ready to admit that you are simply one more government school dunce?



The judicial decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the same way Red and Green lights are treated in Rome....as merely a suggestion.

So saith the Constitution.


See the disadvantage you live under, never having read a book???

"The judicial decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the same way Red and Green lights are treated in Rome....as merely a suggestion."

If so, why is it so important for repugs to load the courts with ultra right wingers?