American Thinker: Why the Law is Foreign to Ginsberg
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
When justices depart from constitutional constraints, they cannot be voted out of office or fired.
I thought they could be impeached.
Stan Shannon wrote:
And this is why some of us have likened our Supreme Court to a de facto oligarchy. After all, on what basis does an oligarchy rule? Its members decide guided by nothing more than the dictates of their own consciences. So people can put as much lipstick on this pig as they want. They can wrap their living-document legal philosophy in a million pseudo-intellectual arguments. But, at the end of the day, it boils down to might makes right. When justices depart from constitutional constraints, they cannot be voted out of office or fired. The only thing constraining them then is their own consciences and the regard of their overseas peers -- just as with an oligarchy
As usual, you play both sides of the street, defending the rule of law when it suits your political purposes and disregarding it when it doesn't. All you really care about is power for your side.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
As usual, you play both sides of the street, defending the rule of law when it suits your political purposes and disregarding it when it doesn't. All you really care about is power for your side.
:thumbsup::thumbsup:
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!! -
Synaptrik wrote: I agree. Your girlfriend took care of me, just fine. Thanks. (p.s. sometimes I have to use i.e. to test my work. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: )
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: Beck was predicting the precise financial meltdown we see today, but I thought he was being paranoid. Hell, I started predicting the housing-market collapse in 2004. I was getting pissed because it was behind schedule. Zep was talking about Credit Derivatives being poison in 2007. This wasn't being prescient, but simply reading a bit more as, I presume, Beck did. If Stan had produced even one shred of evidence for his claim that the Conservatives would be impeached, then perhaps you could offer him a Swami's Headwrap, but he was just talking shit, as he has admitted he will do, just to hear himself put down Obama. Normally I try to ignore him when he gets like that, but it was his presuming to wrap himself in a flag and claiming that he spoke for those who fought and died beside me that made me call him out. he hasn't earned the right to speak for anyone except rear echelon mother fuckers and cowards like Ilion If the strength of my response offended you, I apologise to you. In the future I'll try to be more like no-drama Obama, knowing how much you admire him ;) Mike Gaskey wrote: the extremes that the Obama administration Mebbe so. But even though he and Pelosi might get a simple majority in the H of R, I am quite sure he could not get the 2/3rds vote he needs in the Senate. Hell, I don't think he could hold all 60 Democratic votes. Ben Nelson, for one, would bolt.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
If Stan had produced even one shred of evidence for his claim that the Conservatives would be impeached, then perhaps you could offer him a Swami's Headwrap, but he was just talking sh*t, as he has admitted he will do, just to hear himself put down Obama.
I was actually just trying to get Carson to make my point for me about the improbability of impeachment and therefore support the original point.
Oakman wrote:
but it was his presuming to wrap himself in a flag and claiming that he spoke for those who fought and died beside me that made me call him out. he hasn't earned the right to speak for anyone except rear echelon mother f***ers and cowards like Ilion
I'm not claiming to speak for anyone, merely making the entirely rational point that people fight and die for the countries they fight and die for. The blood shed by American soldiers has been shed for the original formulation of our constitutional republic. Every drop of it. Not a single drop of blood has been sacrificed for abortions or gay rights or flag burning or any of liberal stuff. If aNyone wants to start a war for those principles, I would be more than happy to help them shed blood for their cause.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
If Stan had produced even one shred of evidence for his claim that the Conservatives would be impeached, then perhaps you could offer him a Swami's Headwrap, but he was just talking sh*t, as he has admitted he will do, just to hear himself put down Obama.
I was actually just trying to get Carson to make my point for me about the improbability of impeachment and therefore support the original point.
Oakman wrote:
but it was his presuming to wrap himself in a flag and claiming that he spoke for those who fought and died beside me that made me call him out. he hasn't earned the right to speak for anyone except rear echelon mother f***ers and cowards like Ilion
I'm not claiming to speak for anyone, merely making the entirely rational point that people fight and die for the countries they fight and die for. The blood shed by American soldiers has been shed for the original formulation of our constitutional republic. Every drop of it. Not a single drop of blood has been sacrificed for abortions or gay rights or flag burning or any of liberal stuff. If aNyone wants to start a war for those principles, I would be more than happy to help them shed blood for their cause.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote: Not a single drop of blood has been sacrificed for abortions or gay rights or flag burning or any of liberal stuff. How would you know? Did you read about it in book somewhere? You certainly have never been anywhere near anyone who was sacrificing their blood at the time. You've already said your "battle station" was deep in the bowels of your ship which never saw combat! Here's a clue - a lot of those soldiers who fought and died for America believed in a country that proclaimed abortions were legal and that homosexuals had the same rights as heteros and that free speech was protected even when Stan Shannon disagreed with it. Stan Shannon wrote: I would be more than happy to help them shed blood for their cause. As long as it put you in no more danger now than you were in '72?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Not a single drop of blood has been sacrificed for abortions or gay rights or flag burning or any of liberal stuff. How would you know? Did you read about it in book somewhere? You certainly have never been anywhere near anyone who was sacrificing their blood at the time. You've already said your "battle station" was deep in the bowels of your ship which never saw combat! Here's a clue - a lot of those soldiers who fought and died for America believed in a country that proclaimed abortions were legal and that homosexuals had the same rights as heteros and that free speech was protected even when Stan Shannon disagreed with it. Stan Shannon wrote: I would be more than happy to help them shed blood for their cause. As long as it put you in no more danger now than you were in '72?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
Here's a clue - a lot of those soldiers who fought and died for America believed in a country that proclaimed abortions were legal and that homosexuals had the same rights as heteros and that free speech was protected even when Stan Shannon disagreed with it.
Bullshit. Thats only been true over the last couple of decades. Most of our history abortions were managed by local governments, sodomy was illegal every where, and flag burning was against the law. That is what people were fighting for. About 20 years ago I heard a WWII veteran claim that he had fought for a person's right to burn a flag. As politely as I could, I explained that actually he fought for just the opposite - the right to protect the flag against being desecrated. I mean, what kind of an idiot would fight for someone's right to burn a flag or to butt fuck someone or to kill their unborn baby?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
John Carson wrote:
So it is up to people who died up to 200 years ago to determine how the country should be governed. I take it you don't believe in democracy then?
your criticism doesn't speak well for your rule of law comment. our nation is governed by our Constituition, not men who died 200 years ago. the Constituition doesn't change or evolve except through a defined amendment process.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
your criticism doesn't speak well for your rule of law comment. our nation is governed by our Constituition, not men who died 200 years ago. the Constituition doesn't change or evolve except through a defined amendment process.
I think you are offering an inaccurately benign interpretation of Stan's remarks. He doesn't support fielty to the Constitution. He is happy to see it violated when it suits his purposes, provided the actions are consistent with his ideology, which he justifies as being the ideology of the founding fathers and other long-dead people.
John Carson
-
John Carson wrote:
Isn't that being "voted out of office or fired"?
John Carson wrote:
When pigs fly.
Precisely, and thank you.
John Carson wrote:
So it is up to people who died up to 200 years ago to determine how the country should be governed. I take it you don't believe in democracy then?
I don't believe in democracy. I believe in the constitutional republic that people have been fighting and dieing for since its inception.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Precisely, and thank you.
It is unlikely that you and your entire family will be convicted of murder. That doesn't mean there is no law against it, or that the law is not enforced. Ordinarily, you need to commit the offense before you can be convicted of it.
John Carson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Precisely, and thank you.
It is unlikely that you and your entire family will be convicted of murder. That doesn't mean there is no law against it, or that the law is not enforced. Ordinarily, you need to commit the offense before you can be convicted of it.
John Carson
No, but the simple point remains that a Judge has little concern for being fired (impeached) regardless of what they do. Scalia,Roberts, Thomas and Alito would have to gang rape Ginsburg on the floor of the supreme court courtroom to be impeached.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
No, but the simple point remains that a Judge has little concern for being fired (impeached) regardless of what they do. Scalia,Roberts, Thomas and Alito would have to gang rape Ginsburg on the floor of the supreme court courtroom to be impeached.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
No, but the simple point remains that a Judge has little concern for being fired (impeached) regardless of what they do.
Much the same is true of a President.
John Carson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
No, but the simple point remains that a Judge has little concern for being fired (impeached) regardless of what they do.
Much the same is true of a President.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
Much the same is true of a President.
No, it isn't.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.