Judicial Violence
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: excuse me. he has two bastards by his mistress. What did his kids ever do to you that you would call them names? Would you do it to their faces? Love, Fisticuffs
Fisticuffs wrote: What did his kids ever do to you that you would call them names? Pronunciation: 'bas-t&rd Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, probably of Germanic origin; akin to Old Frisian bost marriage, Old English bindan to bind 1 : an illegitimate child 2 : something that is spurious, irregular, inferior, or of questionable origin 3 a : an offensive or disagreeable person -- used as a generalized term of abuse b : MAN, FELLOW - bas·tard·ly adjective Main Entry: il·le·git·i·mate Pronunciation: -'ji-t&-m&t Function: adjective 1 : not recognized as lawful offspring; specifically : born of parents not married to each other 2 : not rightly deduced or inferred : ILLOGICAL 3 : departing from the regular : ERRATIC 4 a : not sanctioned by law : ILLEGAL b : not authorized by good usage c of a taxon : published but not in accordance with the rules of the relevant international code - il·le·git·i·mate·ly adverb Fisticuffs wrote: Would you do it to their faces? Why not? Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me K(arl) wrote: Date:8:50 23 Feb '05 I love you.
-
Fisticuffs wrote: What did his kids ever do to you that you would call them names? Pronunciation: 'bas-t&rd Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, probably of Germanic origin; akin to Old Frisian bost marriage, Old English bindan to bind 1 : an illegitimate child 2 : something that is spurious, irregular, inferior, or of questionable origin 3 a : an offensive or disagreeable person -- used as a generalized term of abuse b : MAN, FELLOW - bas·tard·ly adjective Main Entry: il·le·git·i·mate Pronunciation: -'ji-t&-m&t Function: adjective 1 : not recognized as lawful offspring; specifically : born of parents not married to each other 2 : not rightly deduced or inferred : ILLOGICAL 3 : departing from the regular : ERRATIC 4 a : not sanctioned by law : ILLEGAL b : not authorized by good usage c of a taxon : published but not in accordance with the rules of the relevant international code - il·le·git·i·mate·ly adverb Fisticuffs wrote: Would you do it to their faces? Why not? Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me K(arl) wrote: Date:8:50 23 Feb '05 I love you.
:laugh: Which one of you guys was whining the other day when somebody called you a "neo-con" ("but liberals are *obviously* using it as a perjorative!"). Bunch of hypocrit cry babies. I still haven't found what I'm lookin' for - U2
-
Fisticuffs wrote: What did his kids ever do to you that you would call them names? Pronunciation: 'bas-t&rd Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, probably of Germanic origin; akin to Old Frisian bost marriage, Old English bindan to bind 1 : an illegitimate child 2 : something that is spurious, irregular, inferior, or of questionable origin 3 a : an offensive or disagreeable person -- used as a generalized term of abuse b : MAN, FELLOW - bas·tard·ly adjective Main Entry: il·le·git·i·mate Pronunciation: -'ji-t&-m&t Function: adjective 1 : not recognized as lawful offspring; specifically : born of parents not married to each other 2 : not rightly deduced or inferred : ILLOGICAL 3 : departing from the regular : ERRATIC 4 a : not sanctioned by law : ILLEGAL b : not authorized by good usage c of a taxon : published but not in accordance with the rules of the relevant international code - il·le·git·i·mate·ly adverb Fisticuffs wrote: Would you do it to their faces? Why not? Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me K(arl) wrote: Date:8:50 23 Feb '05 I love you.
-
:laugh: Which one of you guys was whining the other day when somebody called you a "neo-con" ("but liberals are *obviously* using it as a perjorative!"). Bunch of hypocrit cry babies. I still haven't found what I'm lookin' for - U2
I`m SO there wrote: when somebody called you a "neo-con" sorry sport, I'm a conservative and proud of it. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me K(arl) wrote: Date:8:50 23 Feb '05 I love you.
-
Anonymous wrote: Gee, because it's not a nice thing to say? ya, let us continue with the political correct crap. that way we don't have to acknowledge good or bad, right or wrong. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me K(arl) wrote: Date:8:50 23 Feb '05 I love you.
-
Anonymous wrote: Gee, because it's not a nice thing to say? ya, let us continue with the political correct crap. that way we don't have to acknowledge good or bad, right or wrong. Mike "liberals were driven crazy by Bush." Me To: Dixie Sluts, M. Moore, the Boss, Bon Jovi, Clooney, Penn, Babs, Soros, Redford, Gore, Daschle - "bye bye" Me "I voted for W." Me "There you go again." RR "Flushed the Johns" Me K(arl) wrote: Date:8:50 23 Feb '05 I love you.
Mike Gaskey wrote: that way we don't have to acknowledge good or bad, right or wrong. Interesting moralizing from a guy who says he would call little kids 'bastards' to their faces just to prove a point he made on the internet. Oddly empty moralizing coming from a guy who believes so strongly that what happened in Florida was murder and evil but did absolutely nothing to stop it. Useless posturing coming from someone who lectures for hours and hours and hours about the schiavo case but has never met any of them or actually seen the evidence provided to the courts. You go, girlfriend! - F
-
K(arl) wrote: For instance, condemning to Death Penalty or not is a political action. Not when it is proscribed by law. K(arl) wrote: How can a human interpretation be objective? By not inventing meanings not associated with words in the law. recent Supreme Court decisions that reference "world opinion" are a case in point. We're governed by laws, not opinions and certainly not those of the "world". K(arl) wrote: whatever the side, politicians always go against judges when the decisions of the latter don't fit them, claiming they are persecuted/countered/manipulated by a politically motivated judicial branch. Not true. quote your sources. in the of Terri S. the law was ignored by the judges. K(arl) wrote: Separation of powers is the base of our democratic systems, attacking that is threatening the very fundations of everything we believe is good to organize a society. Checks and balances are the base, in the case of judges there is no balance as they have, in some meansure, been interpreting law instead of applying it. In many cases they are creating new law, which is not their perogative, and have been doing it since the 60s. Current discussions conducted by law makers towards reining in the judiciary are in fact the checks and balances in operation. K(arl) wrote: we believe I don't know who "we" might be but the only "we" I give a damn about is the US and we're governed by Constituitions, state and federal, plus laws enacted under the control of those constituitions. As stated earlier, judges have been ignoring the law and creating their own - unlawfully I might add. Mike K(arl) wrote: Date:8:50 23 Feb '05 I love you.
Mike Gaskey wrote: Not when it is proscribed by law Unless it's a mandatory sentence (something not far for a violation of human rights IMO), the judge decides or not to apply this legal murder. It's his/her decision. Mike Gaskey wrote: By not inventing meanings not associated with words in the law I'm sure you're not stupid enough to fail to understand legal texts can be interpreted, right? Mike Gaskey wrote: We're governed by laws Is there no law to condemn threats made against judges? Mike Gaskey wrote: in the of Terri S. the law was ignored by the judges. I haven't followed the case close enough, but AKAIK, many courts statued on the case. If I understand correctly, the "special law" made by Republicans wasn't an order made to judges, or if it is, then you don't need neither judges nor a judicial branch. I even doubt this special law respect the spirit and the letter of your constitution. A law which is unconstitutional is void. Mike Gaskey wrote: in the case of judges there is no balance Is there no appeal courts? What is the Supreme court for? Mike Gaskey wrote: I don't know who "we" might be but the only "we" I give a damn about is the US Oh? I thought you were in favor or exporting democracy, using violence if necessary. Aren't you turning your coat?
Fold With Us! Chaos A.D. Disorder unleashed
-
K(arl) wrote: Separation of powers is the base of our democratic systems, attacking that is threatening the very fundations of everything we believe is good to organize a society. But it is the judiciary itself that is the most profound threat to the seperation of powers in the US. Given the power that the federal courts have grabbed over the last two centuries, the U.S. no longer even needs elected representatives, the courts are already thumbing their noses at the will of the people, and implementing what ever laws and regulations they think appropriate. They have nothing to fear from the elected representatives who are afraid to confront them and exercise the true powers they have under the constitution to control the courts. The Congress has absolute constitutional authority to fire ever single setting judge on the bench tommorow if they would merely stand up and do it. Nothing could be better for this country than that. "The Yahoos refused to be tamed."
Stan Shannon wrote: The Congress has absolute constitutional authority to fire ever single setting judge on the bench tommorow if they would merely stand up and do it * Does that need a simple majority vote to do so? * Is there no "council" whose role is to supervize how the judicial branch work? * who is the "guarantor" of the independence of the judicial branch? The US President?
Fold With Us! Chaos A.D. Disorder unleashed
-
Stan Shannon wrote: The Congress has absolute constitutional authority to fire ever single setting judge on the bench tommorow if they would merely stand up and do it * Does that need a simple majority vote to do so? * Is there no "council" whose role is to supervize how the judicial branch work? * who is the "guarantor" of the independence of the judicial branch? The US President?
Fold With Us! Chaos A.D. Disorder unleashed
The constitution leaves all of that pretty much up to the legislative branch to define. Judges serve for life as long as there conduct is appropriate. But the definition of what that means is entirely up to the congress. The framers of the constitution intentionally made the judicial branch the weakest branch because they were, in fact, not democratically elected. The judiciary has been on a 200 year power grab and no one has ever challanged them on it. Many of us believe it is high time to do so because the courts are now ignoring the will of the electorate altogether. The left has no problem with it becuase the judges are largely leftist and consistently make decisions based on their leftist philosophies. But even the left should understand the dangers inherent in a court that recognizes no limitations at all on its power. It is for that reason alone that I consider myself a "conservative" and vote republican. On most of the actual issues, I'm really quite liberal. "The Yahoos refused to be tamed."