Just who is the Federalists Society

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I have no delusions anymore, we are not a democracy, we are run by the people with money.

We never were a democracy.

Yes, unfortunately, we are run by people with money because we have allowed government to get out of control and ignore its primary function, which is that of preserving individual liberty.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Gee lets see, maybe because the federalist society is all conservatives.

The ABA is all leftists, so again, why should the opinion of the ABA outweigh the opinion of the Federalist Society?

 

[Disir]

Good gawd.

You have to be a mole.

Moles are Rhodes Scholars compared to these imbeciles.

Unless you're implying they are enemy agents of the International Marxists.

I'd call them pawns if they had any brains, they're more like the board itself.

Anyway, as far as I'm concerned libertarian philosophy should be the foundation of how we practice law in this country. Statist pieces of shit these democrook judges all seem to be have no business anywhere near a gavel (or free to roam around in public for that matter). Obviously just because a republicrat nominates a judge does not mean they're not traitors to the Constitution also.

I think there is a mistake in politicizing courts. Usually, a decision will tell you what you have to do to get your desired outcome. If someone strongly believes a law is unconstitutional then they can throw down their cash, like everyone else, and take it to the Supreme Court.

 

[Doc1]

I have no delusions anymore, we are not a democracy, we are run by the people with money.

We are indeed but they are not Conservatives.

 

[whitehall]

A socialist democrat activist Sanders supporter opened fire on a republican baseball team last year. That's the difference between Federalists and Socialists in a nut shell.

 

[Pete7469]

I think there is a mistake in politicizing courts. Usually, a decision will tell you what you have to do to get your desired outcome. If someone strongly believes a law is unconstitutional then they can throw down their cash, like everyone else, and take it to the Supreme Court.

I agree, but I prefer a strict interpretation.

You have to be a blithering idiot to insist the 1st Amendment applies to the people being able to say whatever they want, but the 2nd Amendment applies only to certain people the government wants to arm and only while actually on active duty.

That should transcend politics, but here we are.

 

[Disir]

I have no delusions anymore, we are not a democracy, we are run by the people with money.

We are indeed but they are not Conservatives.

They are whatever you want them to be.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I think there is a mistake in politicizing courts. Usually, a decision will tell you what you have to do to get your desired outcome. If someone strongly believes a law is unconstitutional then they can throw down their cash, like everyone else, and take it to the Supreme Court.

And, that is exactly what I want to avoid in the appointment Supreme Court or Circuit Court Justices.

Decisions should not be outcome driven, even if the results are brutally harsh to those directly affected by the decision.

We need justices who use the proper rules of interpretation in applying constitutional law, even if the outcome is harsh. There is a process to follow if the constitution is not working. It is a mechanism, not an organism.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You have to be a blithering idiot to insist the 1st Amendment applies to the people being able to say whatever they want, but the 2nd Amendment applies only to certain people the government wants to arm and only while actually on active duty.

Wow. "Wrong" is not strong enough of a word.

The 2nd Amendment applies to Congress. It tells Congress that it shall not make laws infringing on the right of people to have arms. There is no other reasonable interpretation. It is a prohibition on Congressional action. Nothing more.

The power to regulate "arms" is reserved by the individual states.

 

[Doc1]

I have no delusions anymore, we are not a democracy, we are run by the people with money.

We are indeed but they are not Conservatives.

They are whatever you want them to be.

Yeah, no. Banker's.

 

[TNHarley]

By the way, if they want to go back to the Constitution, that means we go back to slavery, or are they, the new conservatives going to pick and choose???

I hope you dont vote

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

By the way, if they want to go back to the Constitution, that means we go back to slavery, or are they, the new conservatives going to pick and choose???

No. The 13th and 14th Amendments take care of that.

We want changes to the constitution to be done properly. Activist Justices have "interpreted" their way around the amendment process. We want to flush all that bullshit "interpretation" down the motherfucking drain and go back to the original meaning and the meaning of the amendments.

Don't like it?

Amend it.

 

[Disir]

I have no delusions anymore, we are not a democracy, we are run by the people with money.

We are indeed but they are not Conservatives.

They are whatever you want them to be.

Yeah, no. Banker's.

in stilettos with fishnet stockings.......

 

[Doc1]

I have no delusions anymore, we are not a democracy, we are run by the people with money.

We are indeed but they are not Conservatives.

They are whatever you want them to be.

Yeah, no. Banker's.

in stilettos with fishnet stockings.......

Could be. Look I won't judge you for what you do in your own bedroom.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Federalist Society, yet another manifestation of the reprehensible, wrongheaded right.

 

[Disir]

I think there is a mistake in politicizing courts. Usually, a decision will tell you what you have to do to get your desired outcome. If someone strongly believes a law is unconstitutional then they can throw down their cash, like everyone else, and take it to the Supreme Court.

And, that is exactly what I want to avoid in the appointment Supreme Court or Circuit Court Justices.

Decisions should not be outcome driven, even if the results are brutally harsh to those directly affected by the decision.

We need justices who use the proper rules of interpretation in applying constitutional law, even if the outcome is harsh. There is a process to follow if the constitution is not working. It is a mechanism, not an organism.

You make no sense and you don't understand how this works. They will tell you that the law is constitutional, why it is unconstitutional and if you wish for it to be constitutional then Congress needs to change the law. That's it.

The person going to court is seeking a specific outcome. A remedy. That either exists or it does not.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

So Democrats are under qualified.

For objectivity and independent thought, yeah most of 'em are WAY underqualified which explains why they became Democrat sheeple in the first place.

I suggest these white racist move to Africa and you can start over from scratch and go back in time to the 1800's. Then Africa can be a Libertarian nation or Federalist nation.

FYI: The United States is a federalist nation, has been since its founding, not sure why you attempted to associate libertarians with Africa but I guess I can chalk it up to ignorance producing odd side effects.

Its a democracy. It has always been maj rules.

Wow. The public school system sure did you wrong.

I suggest they did you wrong. We area democracy, like it or not. Take away the EC, even they go by maj vote.

We are not, nor have we ever been. We are a Republic, under a Constitution.

 

[Disir]

I have no delusions anymore, we are not a democracy, we are run by the people with money.

We are indeed but they are not Conservatives.

They are whatever you want them to be.

Yeah, no. Banker's.

in stilettos with fishnet stockings.......

Could be. Look I won't judge you for what you do in your own bedroom.

That's nice. But, just between you and me there are definitely no bankers in my bedroom.

 

[Penelope]

So Democrats are under qualified.

For objectivity and independent thought, yeah most of 'em are WAY underqualified which explains why they became Democrat sheeple in the first place.

I suggest these white racist move to Africa and you can start over from scratch and go back in time to the 1800's. Then Africa can be a Libertarian nation or Federalist nation.

FYI: The United States is a federalist nation, has been since its founding, not sure why you attempted to associate libertarians with Africa but I guess I can chalk it up to ignorance producing odd side effects.

Its a democracy. It has always been maj rules.

Wow. The public school system sure did you wrong.

I suggest they did you wrong. We area democracy, like it or not. Take away the EC, even they go by maj vote.

We are not, nor have we ever been. We are a Republic, under a Constitution.

I have no delusions anymore, we are not a democracy, we are run by the people with money.

We are indeed but they are not Conservatives.

So we are a democracy?

 

[Penelope]

So Democrats are under qualified.

For objectivity and independent thought, yeah most of 'em are WAY underqualified which explains why they became Democrat sheeple in the first place.

I suggest these white racist move to Africa and you can start over from scratch and go back in time to the 1800's. Then Africa can be a Libertarian nation or Federalist nation.

FYI: The United States is a federalist nation, has been since its founding, not sure why you attempted to associate libertarians with Africa but I guess I can chalk it up to ignorance producing odd side effects.

Its a democracy. It has always been maj rules.

Wow. The public school system sure did you wrong.

I suggest they did you wrong. We area democracy, like it or not. Take away the EC, even they go by maj vote.

We are not, nor have we ever been. We are a Republic, under a Constitution.

Why do we vote then??