This is why liberals have replaced the Constitution with the Supreme Court

[P@triot]

Bullshit. The liberals on the Supreme Court have overwhelmingly proven that they ignore the U.S. Constitution and their jobs in favor of pushing their own personal agenda. It's so obvious and outrageous that no honest person could deny it.

I don't intend to debate the 2nd amendment here, I'll only say that the SC never before EXPLICITLY stated it was a personal right.

When a conservative justice votes in favor of a conservative case that's OK but when a liberal justice does the same that's pushing their own personal agenda and dishonest? I think you have a double standard at work here.

Based on what? Give me one example of my "double standard". You don't even know my political views on different issues so it's insane to make that statement.

 

[P@triot]

Conservatives are always railing against people who attack the constitution, but they regularly call for the Supreme Court to be disbanded. It's crazy stuff.

I've never heard of a conservative calling for the Supreme Court to be "disbanded". Furthermore, even if they did, that is not a violation of the U.S. Constitution (kind of scary that you don't realize that - how fascist of you). In this country, we have the right to express our views and call for anything we want. The difference between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives call for it and attempt to get it done legally, while liberals just do whatever they want against the law.

If conservatives called for the Supreme Court to be disbanded and then legally and properly amended the U.S. Constitution to achieve that, it is 100% legal and constitutional. What is not legal or constitutional is for the federal government to create Obamacare with the Cornhusker Kickback and the Louisiana Purchase, sign it into law, and then get a Supreme Court with an agenda to ok it. Big difference.

 

[alang1216]

Bullshit. The liberals on the Supreme Court have overwhelmingly proven that they ignore the U.S. Constitution and their jobs in favor of pushing their own personal agenda. It's so obvious and outrageous that no honest person could deny it.

I don't intend to debate the 2nd amendment here, I'll only say that the SC never before EXPLICITLY stated it was a personal right.

When a conservative justice votes in favor of a conservative case that's OK but when a liberal justice does the same that's pushing their own personal agenda and dishonest? I think you have a double standard at work here.

Based on what? Give me one example of my "double standard". You don't even know my political views on different issues so it's insane to make that statement.

You said: "The liberals on the Supreme Court have overwhelmingly proven that they ignore the U.S. Constitution and their jobs in favor of pushing their own personal agenda. It's so obvious and outrageous that no honest person could deny it."
I think this statement is a more than adequate basis for my reply on this issue. It was hardly a fair and balanced view.

 

[Pogo]

Bullshit. The liberals on the Supreme Court have overwhelmingly proven that they ignore the U.S. Constitution and their jobs in favor of pushing their own personal agenda. It's so obvious and outrageous that no honest person could deny it.

I don't intend to debate the 2nd amendment here, I'll only say that the SC never before EXPLICITLY stated it was a personal right.

When a conservative justice votes in favor of a conservative case that's OK but when a liberal justice does the same that's pushing their own personal agenda and dishonest? I think you have a double standard at work here.

Based on what? Give me one example of my "double standard". You don't even know my political views on different issues so it's insane to make that statement.

Pffffffffffffffft. You think changing your name while keeping the same avatar and posting history somehow makes you some kind of "mystery"?

 

[P@triot]

Bullshit. The liberals on the Supreme Court have overwhelmingly proven that they ignore the U.S. Constitution and their jobs in favor of pushing their own personal agenda. It's so obvious and outrageous that no honest person could deny it.

I don't intend to debate the 2nd amendment here, I'll only say that the SC never before EXPLICITLY stated it was a personal right.

When a conservative justice votes in favor of a conservative case that's OK but when a liberal justice does the same that's pushing their own personal agenda and dishonest? I think you have a double standard at work here.

Based on what? Give me one example of my "double standard". You don't even know my political views on different issues so it's insane to make that statement.

You said: "The liberals on the Supreme Court have overwhelmingly proven that they ignore the U.S. Constitution and their jobs in favor of pushing their own personal agenda. It's so obvious and outrageous that no honest person could deny it."
I think this statement is a more than adequate basis for my reply on this issue. It was hardly a fair and balanced view.

It is completely fair. Yes - there are other justices that have done it was well (such as Roberts on Obamacare). But the Ginsburg's, Sotomayor's, and Kagen's do it on nearly every issue.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

That is why Antonin Scalia was the greatest justice of our lifetime. He read the U.S. Constitution and he accepted it exactly as it was written (just as our founders intended). And he never once made a ruling based on what he wanted. He set aside his own personal views and ruled by what the document [Constitution, sic] said.

You're a Scalia fan by your own admission and claim, "He read the U.S. Constitution and he accepted it exactly as it was written (just as our founders intended)." You have also often claimed that Amendment II was essentially inviolate, could not be altered in any wise and could not be "infringed" upon in any manner whatsoever.

In D.C. v. Heller Scalia wrote these three passages;

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues.

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

From the Heller decision, which Justice Scalia authored, he CLEARLY points out your errors in the faulty proposition that weapons are to be absolutely free of any regulation, or controls. Now are you now going to walk back your praise of Scalia owing to the fact that his own words in the Heller decision expose gross faults in your previous assertions or will you admit that Scalia was correct in Heller and you have been in gross error all this time?

You are wrong either way based simply on you own words tied to the petard in your hands. Pick your poison Rottwiner...Door #1 or Door #2!

 

[P@triot]

Isn't SCOTUS, how it is staffed and operates part of the Constitution?

Sadly no. It should be. But thanks to liberals - who hate the U.S. Constitution - it's not. For instance, no where in the U.S. Constitution does it grant the Supreme Court the power to decide or "interpret" what the Constitution itself says. And yet that's what they do all the time. Like deciding what our 2nd Amendment rights mean.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution grants the Federal government the power to overturn unconstitutional laws. That power is exercised through the Supreme Court.

Dude....the Supremacy Clause establishes the U.S. Constitution has the highest law in the land. It asserts that the Constitution trumps federal, state, county, of local municipality law. It has nothing to do with the Supreme Court. :cukcoo: