Living Document or Not?

[Liability]

Big red you LIED about what I said and everyone here knows it.


You dont get to claim the scotus is bad because you dont like what they deside.

You either like the system our founders gave us or you dont.


Now your political view has been trashed by the Scotus which the founders designed.

Quit pretending the country has to accept YOUR position on what government does instead of the SCOTUS's.

You are being anti constitutional and US hating when you trash talk our system.

Question there TM - How does a federal appellate court judge get their job?

 

[Oddball]

Rush's Rule for Fools #4: Accuse others of what you do repeatedly (a typical Far Right Reactionary ~ trying to pretend to be a conservative ~ tactic). And bigreb can't even do this well.

You'd be our resident expert on that one, Gomer.

 

[Truthmatters]

When you people claim that the scotus decision about welfare was wrong that is merely an opinion.

It is out of line with the LAWS of this country.

This was decided with the system our founders gave to us.

You are the ones who disagree with the founders not the rest of the country.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You are just going to stick to the lie huh?

I did not say there wer only two bodies.

This shows your argument has fallen ass apart and you are so desperate you are now lying.

TM, you DID say two branches, much as you claimed the other day that federal judges are elected. Just admit that you have not yet had 9th grade civics and go on.

And I was talking only of the two branches.

I never stated there were only two branches.

Now go to that thread and see where I admitted my mistake.

This guy is LYING about what I said and true to your partisan idiotry you lap up the lie.


More proof you people cannot defend your failed ideas and avoid the REAL discussion and resort to lies.

Why are you claiming that I lied? I did not edit your reply. I quoted your reply And what is this I hate America crap that you claim that I am doing?

 

[Truthmatters]

Why did you feel it nessesary to tell me there were three branches after telling me I was wrong about everything?

See you refuse to anser my posts that try to further the real discussion and keep pretending you didnt lie about what I said.

Why do you hate teh system our founders left us?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Big red you LIED about what I said and everyone here knows it.


You dont get to claim the scotus is bad because you dont like what they deside.

You either like the system our founders gave us or you dont.


Now your political view has been trashed by the Scotus which the founders designed.

Quit pretending the country has to accept YOUR position on what government does instead of the SCOTUS's.

You are being anti constitutional and US hating when you trash talk our system.

Looking through what you posted is full of lies
1. When did I lie
2. When did I claim the supreme court was bad?
3. where am I being anit anything but anti liberal activst?
4. What I have said is the Supreme court intent was not to amend the Constitution. It is there to make sure Congress annd the President does not make any laws that are UnConstitutional, anbd if you disagree then it is you who is anti Constitution.
YOU DO NOT GET A PASS ON THIS SHORT CAKE

 

[JakeStarkey]

Rush's Rule for Fools #4: Accuse others of what you do repeatedly (a typical Far Right Reactionary ~ trying to pretend to be a conservative ~ tactic). And bigreb can't even do this well.

You'd be our resident expert on that one, Gomer.

Thanks, comrade.

 

[Bern80]

No, they didn't interpret the COTUS, and they are not meant to. that is where people get confused. SCOTUS was meant to interpret laws passed by Congress as to their constitutionality. Sorry if I worded that wrong.

That's true in the sense that congress can only determine constitutionality on cases that are brought before it, as the result of some conflict in a law passed by congress. So for example if congress decides the commerce clause means it can do whatever it wants basically, it's up to the SCOTUS to determine whether that is what the commerce clause really means. So, ah, yeah aren't they still interpreting the constitution? The problem is when you get President's like FDR that started the politization of the courts.

 

[JakeStarkey]

thats 3 for yurt, 0 for joke

Squirt, you have to give evidence. You don't do that. Indeed, you are one of Rush's Fools.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Why did you feel it nessesary to tell me there were three branches after telling me I was wrong about everything?

See you refuse to anser my posts that try to further the real discussion and keep pretending you didnt lie about what I said.

Why do you hate teh system our founders left us?

Lets see if I can get this to work
Heres the repoly in question

You do realise the two bodies were designed by the founders to do two different things right?

Why do you hate the way the founders designed the SCOTUS?

Wrong on all accounts short cake their are THREE bodies in the govenment and once again
Since everybody likes to bring up the subject of slavery, I will ask you this. Was the supreme court the one that ruled slavery unconstitutional, or was it Congress? The change did not come through the courts but through cngress.

Wrong on all accounts as in your claim that I hate the way the founders designed the supreme court. They did not design it the way you are pushing it. Its been a slow change by liberal actiivst judges that makes you think its the way the founders made it. I hate what the liberal activst judges have tried to change it into. Maybe you are the one that hates the way the founds created the supreme court.
Now you insist that I answer your question but short cake I asked you first.

And wrong about the branches of the government there are three that are to work together makeing sure neither one is doing anything unConstitutional.
Answer my questiion to you.

 

[Yurt]

thats 3 for yurt, 0 for joke

Squirt, you have to give evidence. You don't do that. Indeed, you are one of Rush's Fools.

Rush's Rule for Fools #4: Accuse others of what you do repeatedly (a typical Far Left Reactionary ~ trying to pretend to be a conservative ~ tactic).

poor jake....still no evidence huh

hey buddy....as soon as you put forth some facts i am a racist and i don't support judicial review, then and only then do you have any authority to demand that anyone else provide evidence.

simple concept, even for you....

 

[JakeStarkey]

When you stumble again (and you will), I will do that. You are racist and you don't support judicial review as it is being used. Yes, you have to provide evidence, and I will call you on that, Squirt.

 

[Yurt]

When you stumble again (and you will), I will do that. You are racist and you don't support judicial review as it is being used. Yes, you have to provide evidence, and I will call you on that, Squirt.

still waiting for those facts to prove your assertions as you stated are required according to YOUR debate rules....

its also funny how you're dishonestly altering your claim from earlier where you falsely claimed i don't like judicial review...

your lies and immature games are really getting boring....either debate or stfu

simple

 

[bigrebnc1775]

When you stumble again (and you will), I will do that. You are racist and you don't support judicial review as it is being used. Yes, you have to provide evidence, and I will call you on that, Squirt.

still waiting for those facts to prove your assertions as you stated are required according to YOUR debate rules....

its also funny how you're dishonestly altering your claim from earlier where you falsely claimed i don't like judicial review...

your lies and immature games are really getting boring....either debate or stfu

simple

He's feeding tom clancy on another thread a loud of crap.

 

[Liability]

When you people claim that the scotus decision about welfare was wrong that is merely an opinion.

It is out of line with the LAWS of this country.

This was decided with the system our founders gave to us.

You are the ones who disagree with the founders not the rest of the country.

Spoken like the imbecile you are.

Your "thesis" boils down to the retarded proposition that says, "if the SCOTUS says it, then it's Constitutional."

Of course, that's ridiculous. If 5 of the 9 were to "find" and "rule" tomorrow that "free speech" applied only to conservatives who take issue with the policies of the Obama Administration, according to the "logic" you use, THAT would constitute "good" Constitutional analysis.

The system our Founders and Framers bestowed on us, you simpleton, presumed that the jurists would actually comply with the terms and conditions imposed by the Constitution. In many instances of SCOTUS jurisprudence, the Founders and Framers would justifiably be dismayed at how dismissive the SCOTUS is of those very terms.

Blind support of SCOTUS rulings is un-American especially when the SCOTUS is so obviously behaving and ruling improperly.

 

[Yurt]

When you people claim that the scotus decision about welfare was wrong that is merely an opinion.

It is out of line with the LAWS of this country.

This was decided with the system our founders gave to us.

You are the ones who disagree with the founders not the rest of the country.

then you of course fully support the citizens united case....

oh wait, you claim that is not good law....

strange how that works for you...when you agree with scotus, its good law, when you don't, its bad and you hope it gets overturned by a future decisoin or the legislature

 

[JakeStarkey]

Oh, boy, Yurt the Squirt chases his tail, around and around and around.

 

[Truthmatters]

When you people claim that the scotus decision about welfare was wrong that is merely an opinion.

It is out of line with the LAWS of this country.

This was decided with the system our founders gave to us.

You are the ones who disagree with the founders not the rest of the country.

then you of course fully support the citizens united case....

oh wait, you claim that is not good law....

strange how that works for you...when you agree with scotus, its good law, when you don't, its bad and you hope it gets overturned by a future decisoin or the legislature

Do you ever here me say it is not the law?

You people claim all the time that it is not the real law.

You claim it is invalid.

the citizens united case was never called invalid law by me.

I hate it just like I hate the gore v Bush decision but I never pretend it is unconstitutional like you morons do.

 

[Truthmatters]

Why did you feel it nessesary to tell me there were three branches after telling me I was wrong about everything?

See you refuse to anser my posts that try to further the real discussion and keep pretending you didnt lie about what I said.

Why do you hate teh system our founders left us?

Lets see if I can get this to work
Heres the repoly in question

You do realise the two bodies were designed by the founders to do two different things right?

Why do you hate the way the founders designed the SCOTUS?

Wrong on all accounts short cake their are THREE bodies in the govenment and once again
Since everybody likes to bring up the subject of slavery, I will ask you this. Was the supreme court the one that ruled slavery unconstitutional, or was it Congress? The change did not come through the courts but through cngress.

Wrong on all accounts as in your claim that I hate the way the founders designed the supreme court. They did not design it the way you are pushing it. Its been a slow change by liberal actiivst judges that makes you think its the way the founders made it. I hate what the liberal activst judges have tried to change it into. Maybe you are the one that hates the way the founds created the supreme court.
Now you insist that I answer your question but short cake I asked you first.

And wrong about the branches of the government there are three that are to work together makeing sure neither one is doing anything unConstitutional.
Answer my questiion to you.

Listen urinal cake, I gave you the history of the scotus and John adams was a founder right?

You see he appointed the scotus member who headed the court in 1802 when they decided this issue.

Do you know what it meant?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yurt is unable to keep his lies straight, TM.