The "social contract" that doesn't exist

[P@triot]

Yeah. What's your point?

If there was a clear interpretation of what the framers wanted, we'd have less 5-4 decisions and a lot more 9-0 decisions.

Reality check, SCOTUS is a political body just like Congress or the White House.

That's what's wrong with SCOTUS. It was never meant to be a political body. You rights shouldn't be up for a vote. If the "consensus" determined that the First Amendment should be abolished, would you support that?

It wouldn't matter if I supported that or not.

Reality check. I think that everyone can right now agree what was done to Japanese Americans in World War II was a horrible abuse of their constitutional rights. In fact, I would go so far as to say that left and right, you'd get a pretty clear concensus that this was wrong, except for a few Neo-Con idiots trying to rationalize Gitmo. (Sit down, Miss Malkin!)

But you know what, the concensus in 1942 was pretty different. These people were terrified the Battleship Yamato was going to show up off San Francisco and start shelling the City.

And you know what, the SCOTUS totally upheld the policies.

Korematsu v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hirabayashi v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yasui v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In short, they bowed to the political reality of the day.

Pure ignorance. This is the equivalent of saying "well our founders had slaves, so having slaves is ok and should continue today". Joe, sweetie, you can't point to illegal, immoral, or injustices of the past as justification for illegal, immoral, or injustices of today.

It's very clear that a Supreme Court Justice is required to set aside their personal beliefs, and without bias, rule on whether a case before them is Constitutional. It is a very simple task and damn near every case should end with a 9-0 decision. The fact that it doesn't is due solely to the fact that Dumbocrats hate the Constitution and stack the court every chance they get with anti-American, anti-Constitutional, ignorant partisan assholes such as yourself in an attempt to further a political agenda that they are incapable of promoting through legal and proper channels (such as amending the Constitution to reflect their fucked up ideology).

Sonya Sotomayor once said "judges make law from the bench" and later apologized publicly because she realized what a monumental ****-up that was admitting her disturbing personal view on being a judge. That disgusting little troll Elena Kagen had never even been a judge in her entire miserable life - not even a local county judge in the most rural of areas, but inexplicably gets appointed to the Supreme Court. This is the kind of trash that Dumbocrats appoint to the Supreme Court and it's undeniable proof why the checks and balances are failing (exactly the intentions of the Dumbocrats who can't win the battle by following the law).

 

[P@triot]

[

So know you're admitting the justices who actually do execute their duties properly and adhere to the U.S. Constitution properly are the problem in your mind, while applauding the justices who conduct political activism from the bench?

Wow. JoeB proving once again what a monumental asshole he is in a rare moment of honesty. A Supreme Court Justice was intended to put aside their personal feelings and without bias, judge whether issues where a violation of the Constitution. It is a very simple task which I could practically execute in my sleep. Only a Dumbocrat could complicate something so simple.

And to recap, Joe hates our founders, hates any Supreme Court Justice who actually adheres to the U.S. Constitution without bias, hates people who take the risk to start a business and become successful, but loves communsim because (and I quote) "it works". I'v never seen a more hateful and miserable asshole than Joe here. The question is, if you hate America so much and love communism, why don't you defect?

Because America can be fixed as soon as we tell wingnut tools like you to sit down and shut the **** up.

This is what you don't get. The "America" you love is DEAD, DEAD, DEAD. And honestly, it was racist, misogynistic, homophobic and greedy and no one is going to really miss it. It's being replaced by an America that is fair and just and equitable, and most people will be better off for it.

But back to the point I was making. The Supreme Court has become Politics by other means.

You guys can't squeal about "Judicial Activism" after Gore v. Bush, where the SCOTUS effectively ignored not only the popular vote, but decades of precedents to give Bush the win.

And that rotten old bastard Scalia ain't going to live forever. Heh, heh, heh.

I rest my case folks. This is your modern day Dumbocrat - loves communism and believes (as communists do) that the people need to be told "to sit down and shut the **** up".

There is a reason Dumbocrats don't want a debate - they have their asses handed to them because they are on the wrong side of the facts (and they know it too - but they can't help the way they feel). A Dumbocrat is just another term for "emotional train wreck". They don't set aside feelings and use logic and reason to make decisions. They use feelings to make decisions. Irrational, emotional, feelings.

And Joe - I hate to break it to you, but you are in the extreme minority (notice how you have your ass handed to you by so many on USMB?). You wield no power to do anything. Hell, you can't even hold a job.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Pure ignorance. This is the equivalent of saying "well our founders had slaves, so having slaves is ok and should continue today". Joe, sweetie, you can't point to illegal, immoral, or injustices of the past as justification for illegal, immoral, or injustices of today.

It's very clear that a Supreme Court Justice is required to set aside their personal beliefs, and without bias, rule on whether a case before them is Constitutional. It is a very simple task and damn near every case should end with a 9-0 decision. The fact that it doesn't is due solely to the fact that Dumbocrats hate the Constitution and stack the court every chance they get with anti-American, anti-Constitutional, ignorant partisan assholes such as yourself in an attempt to further a political agenda that they are incapable of promoting through legal and proper channels (such as amending the Constitution to reflect their fucked up ideology).

Sonya Sotomayor once said "judges make law from the bench" and later apologized publicly because she realized what a monumental ****-up that was admitting her disturbing personal view on being a judge. That disgusting little troll Elena Kagen had never even been a judge in her entire miserable life - not even a local county judge in the most rural of areas, but inexplicably gets appointed to the Supreme Court. This is the kind of trash that Dumbocrats appoint to the Supreme Court and it's undeniable proof why the checks and balances are failing (exactly the intentions of the Dumbocrats who can't win the battle by following the law).

Okay, guy, here's the thing.

Justice Thomas had all of two years on the bench... the only reasons he was appointed was that 1) He was black and 2) he didn't have a record anyone could scrutinize.

The GOP Appointed both Earl Warren AND William Taft to be Cheif Justices when they weren't even judges.

So the whole argument you are making here kind of falls flat.

The problem with the "original intent" argument of Right Wingers is that they don't really follow it themselves.

Citizen's United is a great example of the kind of judicial activism you supposedly hate. It really had nothing to do with free speech, just the transfer of wealth.

But it helps your side, so you probably think it was a wonderful decision.

Same with Heller (which ignored 80 years of precendence) or Gore v. Bush. You can't get your way at the ballot box or the legistlature, so you run off to the courts.

Except you guys aren't appointing the judges anymore, so you might be in a bit of a pickle.

 

[JoeB131]

Because America can be fixed as soon as we tell wingnut tools like you to sit down and shut the **** up.

.

I rest my case folks. This is your modern day Dumbocrat - loves communism and believes (as communists do) that the people need to be told "to sit down and shut the **** up".

There is a reason Dumbocrats don't want a debate - they have their asses handed to them because they are on the wrong side of the facts (and they know it too - but they can't help the way they feel). A Dumbocrat is just another term for "emotional train wreck". They don't set aside feelings and use logic and reason to make decisions. They use feelings to make decisions. Irrational, emotional, feelings.

And Joe - I hate to break it to you, but you are in the extreme minority (notice how you have your ass handed to you by so many on USMB?). You wield no power to do anything. Hell, you can't even hold a job.

Guy, the sad thing is, having been a wingnut myself for far too long, I know all the tricks you guys pull and usually turn them back on you... so, no, not so much.

I have no desire to really bother debating with people who are told what to think by the wealthy who don't care if you live or die. You people are tools. Just like I don't argue with the minimum wage clerk when my service is messed up. I talk to the freaking manager.

What you don't get is that you are kind of a tool. You listen to talk radio all day and pretend you are having original thoughts.

And you wonder why you aren't winning elections anymore.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Citizen's United is a great example of the kind of judicial activism you supposedly hate. It really had nothing to do with free speech, just the transfer of wealth.

Citizens United vs FEC is about producing a political movie and affirmed because you incorporate you are still covered by 1st amendment protections.

A collective, expressing as such has the same 1st AMD protections as the individual.

You lie.

Again.

 

[JoeB131]

Citizen's United is a great example of the kind of judicial activism you supposedly hate. It really had nothing to do with free speech, just the transfer of wealth.

Citizens United vs FEC is about producing a political movie and affirmed because you incorporate you are still covered by 1st amendment protections.

A collective, expressing as such has the same 1st AMD protections as the individual.

You lie.

Again.

Actually, it went far beyond the original question, granting corporations and unions effective "Personhood"... which is far beyond whta the constitution calls for.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Citizen's United is a great example of the kind of judicial activism you supposedly hate. It really had nothing to do with free speech, just the transfer of wealth.

Citizens United vs FEC is about producing a political movie and affirmed because you incorporate you are still covered by 1st amendment protections.

A collective, expressing as such has the same 1st AMD protections as the individual.

You lie.

Again.

Actually, it went far beyond the original question, granting corporations and unions effective "Personhood"... which is far beyond whta the constitution calls for.

Example ? (This ought to be good)

 

[JoeB131]

Citizens United vs FEC is about producing a political movie and affirmed because you incorporate you are still covered by 1st amendment protections.

A collective, expressing as such has the same 1st AMD protections as the individual.

You lie.

Again.

Actually, it went far beyond the original question, granting corporations and unions effective "Personhood"... which is far beyond whta the constitution calls for.

Example ? (This ought to be good)

It gives corporations the same free speech rights people have.

Which is not what the constitution calls for.

Seriously, are you like retarded or what?

 

[OODA_Loop]

Actually, it went far beyond the original question, granting corporations and unions effective "Personhood"... which is far beyond whta the constitution calls for.

Example ? (This ought to be good)

It gives corporations the same free speech rights people have.

Which is not what the constitution calls for.

Seriously, are you like retarded or what?

So McDonalds is not protected by the 1st Amendment ?

 

[JoeB131]

Example ? (This ought to be good)

It gives corporations the same free speech rights people have.

Which is not what the constitution calls for.

Seriously, are you like retarded or what?

So McDonalds is not protected by the 1st Amendment ?

It shouldn't be.

McDonald's is a mutli-national corporation. It shouldn't be making political speech, and it's commercial speech should be limited.

For instance, they shouldn't be allowed to tell kids that their food is healthy when it clearly isn't.

 

[OODA_Loop]

It gives corporations the same free speech rights people have.

Which is not what the constitution calls for.

Seriously, are you like retarded or what?

So McDonalds is not protected by the 1st Amendment ?

It shouldn't be.

McDonald's is a mutli-national corporation. It shouldn't be making political speech, and it's commercial speech should be limited.

For instance, they shouldn't be allowed to tell kids that their food is healthy when it clearly isn't.

You want to be Free Speech Czar ?

What if McDonalds wants to do an advert on how republican party policies keeps its workers below a living wage ?

Methinks ole' Free Speech Czar would approve that.


BTW - McDonalds is perfectly healthy with the personal choice of balanced consumption.

 

[Redfish]

It gives corporations the same free speech rights people have.

Which is not what the constitution calls for.

Seriously, are you like retarded or what?

So McDonalds is not protected by the 1st Amendment ?

It shouldn't be.

McDonald's is a mutli-national corporation. It shouldn't be making political speech, and it's commercial speech should be limited.

For instance, they shouldn't be allowed to tell kids that their food is healthy when it clearly isn't.

Is McDonalds made up of individuals? Do those individuals not have the right to express their opinions because they work for a corporation? Do they not have the right of assembly and class action?

You lefties get all twisted up on the "corporations are persons" thing.

Corporations are considered legal "persons" in order to protect the employees and shareholders from personal liability for the acts of the corporations. And thats a good thing, otherwise every employee and shareholder would have been named in the suit when the old lady spilled coffee on her cooch

 

[candycorn]

Because America can be fixed as soon as we tell wingnut tools like you to sit down and shut the **** up.

.

I rest my case folks. This is your modern day Dumbocrat - loves communism and believes (as communists do) that the people need to be told "to sit down and shut the **** up".

There is a reason Dumbocrats don't want a debate - they have their asses handed to them because they are on the wrong side of the facts (and they know it too - but they can't help the way they feel). A Dumbocrat is just another term for "emotional train wreck". They don't set aside feelings and use logic and reason to make decisions. They use feelings to make decisions. Irrational, emotional, feelings.

And Joe - I hate to break it to you, but you are in the extreme minority (notice how you have your ass handed to you by so many on USMB?). You wield no power to do anything. Hell, you can't even hold a job.

Guy, the sad thing is, having been a wingnut myself for far too long, I know all the tricks you guys pull and usually turn them back on you... so, no, not so much.

I have no desire to really bother debating with people who are told what to think by the wealthy who don't care if you live or die. You people are tools. Just like I don't argue with the minimum wage clerk when my service is messed up. I talk to the freaking manager.

What you don't get is that you are kind of a tool. You listen to talk radio all day and pretend you are having original thoughts.

And you wonder why you aren't winning elections anymore.

Well, the voter fraud is the reason they don't win elections any more...that and bad media coverage and I'm sure gay marriage is to blame too somewhere in there.

 

[Redfish]

yo, fluke. see below.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The "social contract" is based on the moral position that, as a wealthy nation, we must help certain people.

Liberals won't admit it, but they really don't have an issue using the state to impose their mortality on others.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So McDonalds is not protected by the 1st Amendment ?

It shouldn't be.

McDonald's is a mutli-national corporation. It shouldn't be making political speech, and it's commercial speech should be limited.

For instance, they shouldn't be allowed to tell kids that their food is healthy when it clearly isn't.

Is McDonalds made up of individuals? Do those individuals not have the right to express their opinions because they work for a corporation? Do they not have the right of assembly and class action?

You lefties get all twisted up on the "corporations are persons" thing.

Corporations are considered legal "persons" in order to protect the employees and shareholders from personal liability for the acts of the corporations. And thats a good thing, otherwise every employee and shareholder would have been named in the suit when the old lady spilled coffee on her cooch

In this, as with most things, liberals and leftists can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty

 

[P@triot]

Pure ignorance. This is the equivalent of saying "well our founders had slaves, so having slaves is ok and should continue today". Joe, sweetie, you can't point to illegal, immoral, or injustices of the past as justification for illegal, immoral, or injustices of today.

It's very clear that a Supreme Court Justice is required to set aside their personal beliefs, and without bias, rule on whether a case before them is Constitutional. It is a very simple task and damn near every case should end with a 9-0 decision. The fact that it doesn't is due solely to the fact that Dumbocrats hate the Constitution and stack the court every chance they get with anti-American, anti-Constitutional, ignorant partisan assholes such as yourself in an attempt to further a political agenda that they are incapable of promoting through legal and proper channels (such as amending the Constitution to reflect their fucked up ideology).

Sonya Sotomayor once said "judges make law from the bench" and later apologized publicly because she realized what a monumental ****-up that was admitting her disturbing personal view on being a judge. That disgusting little troll Elena Kagen had never even been a judge in her entire miserable life - not even a local county judge in the most rural of areas, but inexplicably gets appointed to the Supreme Court. This is the kind of trash that Dumbocrats appoint to the Supreme Court and it's undeniable proof why the checks and balances are failing (exactly the intentions of the Dumbocrats who can't win the battle by following the law).

Okay, guy, here's the thing.

Justice Thomas had all of two years on the bench... the only reasons he was appointed was that 1) He was black and 2) he didn't have a record anyone could scrutinize.

The GOP Appointed both Earl Warren AND William Taft to be Cheif Justices when they weren't even judges.

So the whole argument you are making here kind of falls flat.

The problem with the "original intent" argument of Right Wingers is that they don't really follow it themselves.

Citizen's United is a great example of the kind of judicial activism you supposedly hate. It really had nothing to do with free speech, just the transfer of wealth.

But it helps your side, so you probably think it was a wonderful decision.

Same with Heller (which ignored 80 years of precendence) or Gore v. Bush. You can't get your way at the ballot box or the legistlature, so you run off to the courts.

Except you guys aren't appointing the judges anymore, so you might be in a bit of a pickle.

"Precedence"? Really? So after explaining to you that you can't point to illegal, immoral, or unjust action as an excuse to continue immoral, illegal, or unjust actions, you go right back to the well?

You clearly don't know what precedence means (shocking). How many judicial decisions were made through a corrupt process (can you say Obamacare)? So in your mind, people should look back on corrupt moments in history and use them to make decisions today?

 

[P@triot]

Because America can be fixed as soon as we tell wingnut tools like you to sit down and shut the **** up.

.

I rest my case folks. This is your modern day Dumbocrat - loves communism and believes (as communists do) that the people need to be told "to sit down and shut the **** up".

There is a reason Dumbocrats don't want a debate - they have their asses handed to them because they are on the wrong side of the facts (and they know it too - but they can't help the way they feel). A Dumbocrat is just another term for "emotional train wreck". They don't set aside feelings and use logic and reason to make decisions. They use feelings to make decisions. Irrational, emotional, feelings.

And Joe - I hate to break it to you, but you are in the extreme minority (notice how you have your ass handed to you by so many on USMB?). You wield no power to do anything. Hell, you can't even hold a job.

Guy, the sad thing is, having been a wingnut myself for far too long, I know all the tricks you guys pull and usually turn them back on you... so, no, not so much.

I have no desire to really bother debating with people who are told what to think by the wealthy who don't care if you live or die. You people are tools. Just like I don't argue with the minimum wage clerk when my service is messed up. I talk to the freaking manager.

What you don't get is that you are kind of a tool. You listen to talk radio all day and pretend you are having original thoughts.

And you wonder why you aren't winning elections anymore.

Again - the guy who can't hold a job because he's so ****'n lazy, is not ashamed of being a parasite, and proclaimed "**** poor people - I'm not helping them, that's what my taxes are for" just like Ebenezer Scrooge wants to call other people a "tool"? Joe, baby, you're the biggest ****'n tool there is. You're ignorant. You're lazy. You're uninformed. You want to force people to "sit down and shut up" like a communist dictator because you can't win an honest debate. You add no links to back up any of your absurd and outrageous claims.

In short, you're furious that the facts show your entire desire for communism is a failed and miserable ideology (much like you - failed and miserable).

By the way Joe - on one hand you proclaim that conservatives can't win elections, but then in the next breath you blame conservatives for all of the failures in this country. So are you now admitting that Dumbocrats have collapsed this nation? You know, since they've won all of the elections and hold all of the offices? You can't keep your stories straight from one post to the next, stupid.

 

[JoeB131]

[
Is McDonalds made up of individuals? Do those individuals not have the right to express their opinions because they work for a corporation? Do they not have the right of assembly and class action?

You lefties get all twisted up on the "corporations are persons" thing.

Corporations are considered legal "persons" in order to protect the employees and shareholders from personal liability for the acts of the corporations. And thats a good thing, otherwise every employee and shareholder would have been named in the suit when the old lady spilled coffee on her cooch

Your reasoning would make sense if they COLLECTIVELY asked the employees of McDonalds what they wanted to say politically. Usually what ends up happening is that a few executives decide what they are going to contribute to, even if it is in complete oppossition to what the employees or shareholders might want.

Oh, by the way, that old lady was one of many who had been seriously maimed by coffee hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns.

 

[JoeB131]

[

"Precedence"? Really? So after explaining to you that you can't point to illegal, immoral, or unjust action as an excuse to continue immoral, illegal, or unjust actions, you go right back to the well?

You clearly don't know what precedence means (shocking). How many judicial decisions were made through a corrupt process (can you say Obamacare)? So in your mind, people should look back on corrupt moments in history and use them to make decisions today?

No, people should look at past decisions that were made and why they were made.

For instance, Heller overturned US v. Miller, which was a very sensible precedent set when people were machine-gunning each in the streets during Prohibition. It found the Second Amendment's clause about "Well Regulated Militias gave the Feds, States and Muncipalities the power to regulate guns. And 80 years of supporting decisions continued to uphold that until Scalia had a brain fart.