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.
And its defense of the 14th Amendment back then and the Civil Rights legislation fifty years later and ACA and marriage equality and fair housing recently and recently. I trust our SCOTUS and federal legislature far more than the state legislatures.Whatever the founders thought matters not today. Whatever SCOTUS thinks matters today.
Like when the Supreme Court said fugitive slaves had to be returned to their owner, or that separate was equal, or that it was okay to put Americans of Japanese descent into internment camps and confiscate their property.........you mean that Supreme Court, the Supreme Court that said that if a town thinks it can make more tax money from your property by taking it from you and selling it to someone who will make them more tax money...that is okay.....that Supreme Court...
As Mark Levin pointed out in his book, "Men In Black," they are human beings, and often times they are deeply, deeply flawed human beings.......
So you think the Founders made some mistakes.Whatever the founders thought matters not today. Whatever SCOTUS thinks matters today.
Like when the Supreme Court said fugitive slaves had to be returned to their owner, or that separate was equal, or that it was okay to put Americans of Japanese descent into internment camps and confiscate their property.........you mean that Supreme Court, the Supreme Court that said that if a town thinks it can make more tax money from your property by taking it from you and selling it to someone who will make them more tax money...that is okay.....that Supreme Court...
As Mark Levin pointed out in his book, "Men In Black," they are human beings, and often times they are deeply, deeply flawed human beings.......
When you come up with a better idea than a Supreme Court, you might have a point.
Mark Levin thinks they should have term limits...so they can do less damage....get rid of them before they turn senile......I could go with that....and a 2/3 over ride in say, the House of Representatives...for any stupid, anti Constitutional ruling they make...I could go with that too.....why should 9 lawyers made far reaching decisions for 320 million people....often resting on one vote...
What Christian principles were we founded on that aren't also Jewish principles that came first?Christianity is not by itself a plan for democratic government.
Who the fuck said that it was.....? We were founded on Christian principals but have a secular government, influenced by those principals with religious freedom that used to be protected and cherished....
Islam has set of commandments that mirror almost exactly the Ten Commandments of the Bible.
And its defense of the 14th Amendment back then and the Civil Rights legislation fifty years later and ACA and marriage equality and fair housing recently and recently. I trust our SCOTUS and federal legislature far more than the state legislatures.Whatever the founders thought matters not today. Whatever SCOTUS thinks matters today.
Like when the Supreme Court said fugitive slaves had to be returned to their owner, or that separate was equal, or that it was okay to put Americans of Japanese descent into internment camps and confiscate their property.........you mean that Supreme Court, the Supreme Court that said that if a town thinks it can make more tax money from your property by taking it from you and selling it to someone who will make them more tax money...that is okay.....that Supreme Court...
As Mark Levin pointed out in his book, "Men In Black," they are human beings, and often times they are deeply, deeply flawed human beings.......
The Ten Commandments do not recognize minority rights.
What Christian principles were we founded on that aren't also Jewish principles that came first?Christianity is not by itself a plan for democratic government.
Who the fuck said that it was.....? We were founded on Christian principals but have a secular government, influenced by those principals with religious freedom that used to be protected and cherished....
Actually, they put safeguards in to prevent us from becoming a Christian nationThe founders of our country were Christian. They were also white, European and aristocrats
Does that make us an aristocratic nation?
No, because they put safeguards in to keep us from becoming Europe....sadly, the democrats keep wanting to get rid of those safeguards because they love the top down government model of Europe.
We should replace the Bill of Rights with the Ten Commandments.
This fails as a false comparison fallacy, you're making references to various rulings that are completely unrelated to each other.Whatever the founders thought matters not today. Whatever SCOTUS thinks matters today.
Like when the Supreme Court said fugitive slaves had to be returned to their owner, or that separate was equal, or that it was okay to put Americans of Japanese descent into internment camps and confiscate their property.........you mean that Supreme Court, the Supreme Court that said that if a town thinks it can make more tax money from your property by taking it from you and selling it to someone who will make them more tax money...that is okay.....that Supreme Court...
As Mark Levin pointed out in his book, "Men In Black," they are human beings, and often times they are deeply, deeply flawed human beings.......
You're also exhibiting your comprehensive ignorance of the Supreme Court, the role of the Court in the Federal system, the doctrine of judicial review, and Constitutional case law itself – this is an inane and ridiculous post.
Explain that, please.The Ten Commandments do not recognize minority rights.
They are all about rights......the 10 commandments are about minority rights how do you not get that........
This fails as a false comparison fallacy, you're making references to various rulings that are completely unrelated to each other.Whatever the founders thought matters not today. Whatever SCOTUS thinks matters today.
Like when the Supreme Court said fugitive slaves had to be returned to their owner, or that separate was equal, or that it was okay to put Americans of Japanese descent into internment camps and confiscate their property.........you mean that Supreme Court, the Supreme Court that said that if a town thinks it can make more tax money from your property by taking it from you and selling it to someone who will make them more tax money...that is okay.....that Supreme Court...
As Mark Levin pointed out in his book, "Men In Black," they are human beings, and often times they are deeply, deeply flawed human beings.......
You're also exhibiting your comprehensive ignorance of the Supreme Court, the role of the Court in the Federal system, the doctrine of judicial review, and Constitutional case law itself – this is an inane and ridiculous post.
Explain that, please.The Ten Commandments do not recognize minority rights.
They are all about rights......the 10 commandments are about minority rights how do you not get that........
This fails as a false comparison fallacy, you're making references to various rulings that are completely unrelated to each other.Whatever the founders thought matters not today. Whatever SCOTUS thinks matters today.
Like when the Supreme Court said fugitive slaves had to be returned to their owner, or that separate was equal, or that it was okay to put Americans of Japanese descent into internment camps and confiscate their property.........you mean that Supreme Court, the Supreme Court that said that if a town thinks it can make more tax money from your property by taking it from you and selling it to someone who will make them more tax money...that is okay.....that Supreme Court...
As Mark Levin pointed out in his book, "Men In Black," they are human beings, and often times they are deeply, deeply flawed human beings.......
You're also exhibiting your comprehensive ignorance of the Supreme Court, the role of the Court in the Federal system, the doctrine of judicial review, and Constitutional case law itself – this is an inane and ridiculous post.
This fails as a false comparison fallacy, you're making references to various rulings that are completely unrelated to each other.Whatever the founders thought matters not today. Whatever SCOTUS thinks matters today.
Like when the Supreme Court said fugitive slaves had to be returned to their owner, or that separate was equal, or that it was okay to put Americans of Japanese descent into internment camps and confiscate their property.........you mean that Supreme Court, the Supreme Court that said that if a town thinks it can make more tax money from your property by taking it from you and selling it to someone who will make them more tax money...that is okay.....that Supreme Court...
As Mark Levin pointed out in his book, "Men In Black," they are human beings, and often times they are deeply, deeply flawed human beings.......
You're also exhibiting your comprehensive ignorance of the Supreme Court, the role of the Court in the Federal system, the doctrine of judicial review, and Constitutional case law itself – this is an inane and ridiculous post.
What Christian principles were we founded on that aren't also Jewish principles that came first?Christianity is not by itself a plan for democratic government.
Who the fuck said that it was.....? We were founded on Christian principals but have a secular government, influenced by those principals with religious freedom that used to be protected and cherished....
Islam has set of commandments that mirror almost exactly the Ten Commandments of the Bible.
The problem....they only apply to muslims...that is the one thing the "experts" fail to point out when they bring that up......Sharia only applies to muslims...all others are either Dhimmi.....under muslim control.....or Infidel.....who are to be killed when found............and muslims are commanded by Islam to spread Sharia by any means necessary and are exempted from anything they need to be exempted from to make this happen......they are not supposed to lie to other muslims...but can if it furthers the cause of spreading sharia.....
People need to learn about islam......or you won't understand what we are facing....
This fails as a false comparison fallacy, you're making references to various rulings that are completely unrelated to each other.Whatever the founders thought matters not today. Whatever SCOTUS thinks matters today.
Like when the Supreme Court said fugitive slaves had to be returned to their owner, or that separate was equal, or that it was okay to put Americans of Japanese descent into internment camps and confiscate their property.........you mean that Supreme Court, the Supreme Court that said that if a town thinks it can make more tax money from your property by taking it from you and selling it to someone who will make them more tax money...that is okay.....that Supreme Court...
As Mark Levin pointed out in his book, "Men In Black," they are human beings, and often times they are deeply, deeply flawed human beings.......
You're also exhibiting your comprehensive ignorance of the Supreme Court, the role of the Court in the Federal system, the doctrine of judicial review, and Constitutional case law itself – this is an inane and ridiculous post.
Okay asshole, tell me this is right........and it is Constitutional because the Supreme Court said so....right?
Another case cited by Mark Levin....
Kelo v. City of New London - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)[1] was a case decided by theSupreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development. In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified private redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
The case arose in the context of condemnation by the city of New London, Connecticut, of privately owned real property, so that it could be used as part of a “comprehensive redevelopment plan.” However, the private developer was unable to obtain financing and abandoned the redevelopment project, leaving the land as an undeveloped empty lot.[2]
Taking property from one private citizen.....to transfer it to a private citizen favored by the local government for tax revenue............and that was deemed Constitutional...
they are just as corrupt and fallible as any other human......that is why we need an override of their stupid decisions.....
This fails as a false comparison fallacy, you're making references to various rulings that are completely unrelated to each other.Whatever the founders thought matters not today. Whatever SCOTUS thinks matters today.
Like when the Supreme Court said fugitive slaves had to be returned to their owner, or that separate was equal, or that it was okay to put Americans of Japanese descent into internment camps and confiscate their property.........you mean that Supreme Court, the Supreme Court that said that if a town thinks it can make more tax money from your property by taking it from you and selling it to someone who will make them more tax money...that is okay.....that Supreme Court...
As Mark Levin pointed out in his book, "Men In Black," they are human beings, and often times they are deeply, deeply flawed human beings.......
You're also exhibiting your comprehensive ignorance of the Supreme Court, the role of the Court in the Federal system, the doctrine of judicial review, and Constitutional case law itself – this is an inane and ridiculous post.
Okay asshole, tell me this is right........and it is Constitutional because the Supreme Court said so....right?
Another case cited by Mark Levin....
Kelo v. City of New London - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)[1] was a case decided by theSupreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development. In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified private redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
The case arose in the context of condemnation by the city of New London, Connecticut, of privately owned real property, so that it could be used as part of a “comprehensive redevelopment plan.” However, the private developer was unable to obtain financing and abandoned the redevelopment project, leaving the land as an undeveloped empty lot.[2]
Taking property from one private citizen.....to transfer it to a private citizen favored by the local government for tax revenue............and that was deemed Constitutional...
they are just as corrupt and fallible as any other human......that is why we need an override of their stupid decisions.....
How else would be determined constitutional or unconstitutional?
SCOTUS is the override per the Constitution on stupid decisions by the legislatures and courts.
They get it right far more often than not.
