We need a new supreme court
|
|
 
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
 Posted: 12/12/03 - 02:57 Post subject:
|
|
|
| themy wrote: | | WheresNWS wrote: | | themy wrote: | | your answer was a very nice round about, please answer what i said... |
Answer what? I didn't see any question marks. :? |
| Quote: | | I have one question for you, why the hell do you care what somebody does in their private lives, in their own house, on their own time??? |
right there, you can't miss that ;p |
Oh, duh. Uh...because you continue to miss the whole point, here. It's society's right to do so. I don't give a f**k if you endorse polygamy, sodomy, prostitution, pedophilia or whatever. The citizenry reserve the right to outlaw such behavior as long as it is in compliance with the constitution.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
 |
Guest
|
|
Posted: 12/12/03 - 03:13 Post subject:
|
|
|
| ATM Banana wrote: | | Kbarr wrote: | Nothing has changed since the last time I posted in this thread.
NWS is still correct.
You might not like his examples:)
Too bad, he is still correct. |
you're so ignorant. |
I see the bullets, where you are dumbfounded by the smoke and mirrors.
Now go pick a zit, kid, and stop bothering me.
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
ATM Banana
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 02 Jan 2003
Posts: 8575
|
|
Posted: 12/12/03 - 03:20 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
for christmas i want you delivered to me in a cage, so i can stab you in the face repeatedly.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
themy
Sir Postalot
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 1153
|
|
Posted: 12/12/03 - 03:30 Post subject:
|
|
|
right there, you can't miss that ;p[/quote]
Oh, duh. Uh...because you continue to miss the whole point, here. It's society's right to do so. I don't give a f**k if you endorse polygamy, sodomy, prostitution, pedophilia or whatever. The citizenry reserve the right to outlaw such behavior as long as it is in compliance with the constitution.[/quote]
Yes, but it is not in compliance with the constitution. besides the courts upholding the right to privacy, it is in violation of sep but equal. As much as you see a straight man having **** with his friend when drunk as the same thing as two day guys having anal **** it is not. I do believe it was pointed out that the act of sodomy was only going to be punished between two males and not a male and a female, i ask you what is different in respect to this act between a male and female that would allow for such a law? clearly this is discriminatory and this is very clear and easy to see.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
Posted: 12/12/03 - 03:38 Post subject:
|
|
|
| ATM Banana wrote: | | for christmas i want you delivered to me in a cage, so i can stab you in the face repeatedly. |
Son, stop being so angry. This is what you really want and need this holiday season. A little soap, elbow grease, medication and a good zit popper and you will feel better about yourself when you look in the most dreaded of places, the mirror. Check out that link too, it might help.
The Toolworx Comedor (also known as pimples) Extractor is precision crafted, and made of stainless steel. The Toolworx Comedo Extractor is double-looped; the flat side is for blackheads, the fine side is for whiteheads.
http://www3.sympatico.ca/spore/wip/Acne.html
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 12/12/03 - 03:42 Post subject:
|
|
|
| themy wrote: | | Yes, but it is not in compliance with the constitution. besides the courts upholding the right to privacy, it is in violation of sep but equal. As much as you see a straight man having **** with his friend when drunk as the same thing as two day guys having anal **** it is not. I do believe it was pointed out that the act of sodomy was only going to be punished between two males and not a male and a female, i ask you what is different in respect to this act between a male and female that would allow for such a law? clearly this is discriminatory and this is very clear and easy to see. |
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/26/scotus.sodomy/
You continue to be wrong, because it criminalized acts, not homosexuality, so it does not rule anybody out. But just for fun, I'll pretend I side with you for a moment. According to this article, there were anti-sodomy laws in 13 states. 4 of them (including Texas) criminalized only same-**** sodomy. The remainder criminalized all sodomy. The supreme court ruled that ALL of these laws were unconstitutional. Now that you've gone down the path towards stating that the law is discriminatory for only targeting same-**** sodomy (which it clearly is not since it applies to all people equally) and have now just discovered that the ruling applies to all sodomy, please go on and explain how such laws are unconstitutional. Also please be aware that as you argue against the constitutionality of anti-sodomy laws, a Utah man has cited this case for his own against the state of Utah.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031202-114522-8005r.htm
Of course, soon the supreme court will rule that this and prostitution are constitutionally protected rights that communities cannot regulate.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Krumble
Toomuchtimeonhands
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 771
|
|
Posted: 12/12/03 - 04:19 Post subject:
|
|
|
| WheresNWS wrote: | They weren't federal employees, d*****t. It was the Alabama supreme court...as in state court. State employees. And the purpose of the bill of rights is to limit power, not dispense it. But I will tell you specifically where the federal courts were constitutionally limited from ruling in this case, but did so anyway.
1st amendment: congress may not establish a religion. State constitutions decide what they do from there.
10th amendment: State powers not restricted by the constitution are given to the states.
And, yes, that sentence was padenesque. When I'm not paying attention, I'll do that. It should read: "The Constitution cannot be honestly interpreted by any educated person to mean what these justices "interpret" it to mean." |
Your "interpretation" of the Constitution differs from that of the Supreme Court. When a 200 year-old, very open-ended document is the cornerstone of your society's law, it's all semantics.
Imagine this for a second. Some 'educated people' out there, somewhere, are sensible enough to realize that a court house is not the appropriate place for religion. For these people, whichever rocks they might be hiding under, the first Amendment might be interpreted to mean you can't purchase and install a monument of the 10 commandments with taxpayer dollars on government property (no matter how many other religions or philosophers it also recognizes). So your corrected statement is still wrong.
But regardless of what these heretics think, it's up to the U.S. supreme Court to interpret the Constitution. Just another step in the right (secular) direction. You might disagree and view this as encroachment onto states' rights by the federal government. Too bad. I remember another group of people (also defending an institution endorsed by 'the book') feeling that way too, around 1861...
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 12/12/03 - 04:28 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Krumble wrote: | | WheresNWS wrote: | They weren't federal employees, d*****t. It was the Alabama supreme court...as in state court. State employees. And the purpose of the bill of rights is to limit power, not dispense it. But I will tell you specifically where the federal courts were constitutionally limited from ruling in this case, but did so anyway.
1st amendment: congress may not establish a religion. State constitutions decide what they do from there.
10th amendment: State powers not restricted by the constitution are given to the states.
And, yes, that sentence was padenesque. When I'm not paying attention, I'll do that. It should read: "The Constitution cannot be honestly interpreted by any educated person to mean what these justices "interpret" it to mean." |
Your "interpretation" of the Constitution differs from that of the Supreme Court. When a 200 year-old, very open-ended document is the cornerstone of your society's law, it's all semantics.
Imagine this for a second. Some 'educated people' out there, somewhere, are sensible enough to realize that a court house is not the appropriate place for religion. For these people, whichever rocks they might be hiding under, the first Amendment might be interpreted to mean you can't purchase and install a monument of the 10 commandments with taxpayer dollars on government property (no matter how many other religions or philosophers it also recognizes). So your corrected statement is still wrong.
But regardless of what these heretics think, it's up to the U.S. supreme Court to interpret the Constitution. Just another step in the right (secular) direction. You might disagree and view this as encroachment onto states' rights by the federal government. Too bad. I remember another group of people (also defending an institution endorsed by 'the book') feeling that way too, around 1861... |
You're pathetic. You have an agenda (atheizing the nation so that it conforms with your bigotted anti-religious views) and believe the courts should push that agenda. You have made no claim of the constitutional basis of those judgements because there isn't one. The constitution very clearly and specifically grants Texas the right to an anti-sodomy law, Alabama the right to put up the 10 commandments in a state courthouse and every american to take out an ad endorsing his candidate of choice. This is what irks decent Americans. It's an intentional disregard for the law by the very people who are mandated with upholding it. We're not exactly talking about blurry legal issues, here. These are cut and dry, very simple to understand rulings. The unforunate part is 2/3 of the country could get together by referendum and pass a constitutional amendment specifically guaranteeing our right to run ads during an election, but the federal courts would simply ignore the text. This is a judicial oligarchy. They believe themselves not to be bound by the law.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Krumble
Toomuchtimeonhands
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 771
|
|
Posted: 12/12/03 - 04:31 Post subject:
|
|
|
| WheresNWS wrote: | | The remainder criminalized all sodomy. The supreme court ruled that ALL of these laws were unconstitutional. Now that you've gone down the path towards stating that the law is discriminatory for only targeting same-**** sodomy (which it clearly is not since it applies to all people equally) and have now just discovered that the ruling applies to all sodomy, please go on and explain how such laws are unconstitutional. |
Incorrect.
Your argument, that they apply to 'all people' equally and are therefore ok, is as inane as all of the others. With this logic, the legislative bodies could also criminalize the orgasm without discriminating against anyone (except maybe pfizer).
You are missing the big picture here. So, you can't hold service in the court house. At least now you have 13 more states in which you can enjoy anal **** with your partner of choice.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 12/12/03 - 04:43 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Krumble wrote: | | WheresNWS wrote: | | The remainder criminalized all sodomy. The supreme court ruled that ALL of these laws were unconstitutional. Now that you've gone down the path towards stating that the law is discriminatory for only targeting same-**** sodomy (which it clearly is not since it applies to all people equally) and have now just discovered that the ruling applies to all sodomy, please go on and explain how such laws are unconstitutional. |
Incorrect.
Your argument, that they apply to 'all people' equally and are therefore ok, is as inane as all of the others. With this logic, the legislative bodies could also criminalize the orgasm without discriminating against anyone (except maybe pfizer).
You are missing the big picture here. So, you can't hold service in the court house. At least now you have 13 more states in which you can enjoy anal **** with your partner of choice. |
Yes, the states reserve the right to criminalize an orgasm. They also reserve the right to criminalize prostitution, polygamy, pedophilia, alcohol, etc. You completely fail at understanding federalism.
Communities decide the laws that suit them and their lives, with certain limited restrictions coming from the constitution. Likewise, the federal government's power is limited by the constitution to respect states' rights. Leftists like yourself who have probably never even set foot in Alabama send in lawyers from the ACLU to demand that a monument be removed because it conflicts with your 2000 mile-away views. Do you remember why America broke from England? Because we didn't like being ruled by people with different interests than our own who lived an ocean away.
You keep blabbing about how wonderful an atheist government would be. I don't give a shit. My opinion shouldn't (and doesn't) matter in Texas or Alabama any more than yours does. However, they reserve the right to manage their state as they see fit. They did just that, but the federal government, without legal basis, stripped them of those rights. The courts are akin to King George, dictating their laws from thousands of miles away.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Krumble
Toomuchtimeonhands
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 771
|
|
Posted: 12/12/03 - 04:55 Post subject:
|
|
|
| WheresNWS wrote: | | You're pathetic. You have an agenda (atheizing the nation so that it conforms with your bigotted anti-religious views) and believe the courts should push that agenda. You have made no claim of the constitutional basis of those judgements because there isn't one. The constitution very clearly and specifically grants Texas the right to an anti-sodomy law, Alabama the right to put up the 10 commandments in a state courthouse and every american to take out an ad endorsing his candidate of choice. This is what irks decent Americans. It's an intentional disregard for the law by the very people who are mandated with upholding it. We're not exactly talking about blurry legal issues, here. These are cut and dry, very simple to understand rulings. The unforunate part is 2/3 of the country could get together by referendum and pass a constitutional amendment specifically guaranteeing our right to run ads during an election, but the federal courts would simply ignore the text. This is a judicial oligarchy. They believe themselves not to be bound by the law. |
I swear, it's like talking to a brick wall.
The Constitution is not infallible and is subject to change from a number of parties. The Supreme Court assumed power to define constitutional law a long, long time ago, and it has not been stopped by the legislative or executive branches yet. They call this precedence.
Just as the legislation has historically held the power to amend the Constitution, now the Supreme Court has the power to interpret it as they see fit. You might disagree with them, this is ok. You are not a senator, representative, or the President. In the past, our 'interpretation' of the Constitution has been altered by far fewer people than now reside over the Supreme Court.
Just like the Constitution FORMERLY (past tense here) specifically granted me the right to have my escaped slaves returned to me, it FORMERLY allowed Texas to get away with an anti-sodomy law.
You statement that I would like the nation to head in a secular direction is the only thing you got even partially right in your post, but is wholly irrelevant to the matter at hand.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Krumble
Toomuchtimeonhands
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 771
|
|
Posted: 12/12/03 - 05:08 Post subject:
|
|
|
| WheresNWS wrote: | Yes, the states reserve the right to criminalize an orgasm. They also reserve the right to criminalize prostitution, polygamy, pedophilia, alcohol, etc. You completely fail at understanding federalism.
Communities decide the laws that suit them and their lives, with certain limited restrictions coming from the constitution. Likewise, the federal government's power is limited by the constitution to respect states' rights. Leftists like yourself who have probably never even set foot in Alabama send in lawyers from the ACLU to demand that a monument be removed because it conflicts with your 2000 mile-away views. Do you remember why America broke from England? Because we didn't like being ruled by people with different interests than our own who lived an ocean away.
You keep blabbing about how wonderful an atheist government would be. I don't give a shit. My opinion shouldn't (and doesn't) matter in Texas or Alabama any more than yours does. However, they reserve the right to manage their state as they see fit. They did just that, but the federal government, without legal basis, stripped them of those rights. The courts are akin to King George, dictating their laws from thousands of miles away. |
This is funny. Partly because I live in Alabama and partly because I vote straight ticket Republican.
I've also not expressed the opinion that an atheist government is superior to a theist one. Please, can you put more words in my mouth?
You did get another thing right, and that is that your opinion does not matter. The court cites the 1st amendment in barring Roy from using government to establish religion (though not with a specific law), and that is that.
The state has some problems, but the issue of a 10 commandments monument not being in a court house is not high on the priority list. Thanks for your concern. The 20 some odd picketers probably share your views, but the vast majority of, however, either do not care or agree with the supreme court's decision.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 12/12/03 - 05:09 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Krumble wrote: | | WheresNWS wrote: | | You're pathetic. You have an agenda (atheizing the nation so that it conforms with your bigotted anti-religious views) and believe the courts should push that agenda. You have made no claim of the constitutional basis of those judgements because there isn't one. The constitution very clearly and specifically grants Texas the right to an anti-sodomy law, Alabama the right to put up the 10 commandments in a state courthouse and every american to take out an ad endorsing his candidate of choice. This is what irks decent Americans. It's an intentional disregard for the law by the very people who are mandated with upholding it. We're not exactly talking about blurry legal issues, here. These are cut and dry, very simple to understand rulings. The unforunate part is 2/3 of the country could get together by referendum and pass a constitutional amendment specifically guaranteeing our right to run ads during an election, but the federal courts would simply ignore the text. This is a judicial oligarchy. They believe themselves not to be bound by the law. |
I swear, it's like talking to a brick wall.
The Constitution is not infallible and is subject to change from a number of parties. The Supreme Court assumed power to define constitutional law a long, long time ago, and it has not been stopped by the legislative or executive branches yet. They call this precedence.
Just as the legislation has historically held the power to amend the Constitution, now the Supreme Court has the power to interpret it as they see fit. You might disagree with them, this is ok. You are not a senator, representative, or the President. In the past, our 'interpretation' of the Constitution has been altered by far fewer people than now reside over the Supreme Court.
Just like the Constitution FORMERLY (past tense here) specifically granted me the right to have my escaped slaves returned to me, it FORMERLY allowed Texas to get away with an anti-sodomy law.
You statement that I would like the nation to head in a secular direction is the only thing you got even partially right in your post, but is wholly irrelevant to the matter at hand. |
Allow me to amend my previous post. Your ignorance is not limited to federalism, but extends to the judicial branch of government as well. Your definition of our judicial system is in line with typical leftists. It grants the courts unlimited power and overrides our democratic society. You have defined a judicial oligarchy. Courts are not mandated with defining law. They apply it. The courts did not free slaves; the 13th amendment did. The 13th and 14th amendments did not exist in antebellum America, so slavery was constitutional.
The suggestion that the supreme court is mandated with defining constitutional law is absurd. Especially when their rulings so blatantly disregard the text of the constitution.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Krumble
Toomuchtimeonhands
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 771
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 12/12/03 - 05:21 Post subject:
|
|
|
I'm assuming you didn't actually read that because it negates your whole argument.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
compusmack
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 15 Oct 2002
Posts: 6354
|
|
Posted: 12/12/03 - 11:56 Post subject:
|
|
|
He doesn't care what you post, he probably doesn't even read it. He'll just grab something out of what you said and twist it to show some kind of doubt (relevant or not) to further his unrelated point. You could post the true meaning of life and he still wouldn't acknowledge it. Seriously, everyone here has tried their hand discussing things with him and they've all come to the same conclusion. He's a close-minded moron.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
Posted: 12/12/03 - 12:34 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
NWS, your argument is too basic. They will never get it.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Krumble
Toomuchtimeonhands
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 771
|
|
Posted: 12/12/03 - 12:59 Post subject:
|
|
|
| WheresNWS wrote: | | I'm assuming you didn't actually read that because it negates your whole argument. |
No, I learned about the case in 8th grade.
"The Court would not declare another act of Congress unconstitutional until 1857, and it has used that power sparingly. But through its role as arbiter of the Constitution, it has, especially in the twentieth century, been the chief agency for the expansion of individual rights. (See Part V.)"
From the usinfo.state.gov, who else do you need to hear it from?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 12/12/03 - 15:44 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Krumble wrote: | | WheresNWS wrote: | | I'm assuming you didn't actually read that because it negates your whole argument. |
No, I learned about the case in 8th grade.
"The Court would not declare another act of Congress unconstitutional until 1857, and it has used that power sparingly. But through its role as arbiter of the Constitution, it has, especially in the twentieth century, been the chief agency for the expansion of individual rights. (See Part V.)"
From the usinfo.state.gov, who else do you need to hear it from? |
Congratualtions on your 8th grade education. However, if you were actually familiar with Marshall and this case at all, you would realize that his role was establishing the constitution as this country's supreme legal document. Read the article you posted and take special care to note his passion for and loyalty the established, written word. The modern court does not even consider the contents of the constitution as these three rulings illustrate. They very clearly and very simply defy it.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Fabulez
Luke Warm
Joined: 11 Nov 2002
Posts: 437
Location: up in here
|
|
Posted: 12/12/03 - 15:49 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
What we need here is a Venn diagram.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIFEFORM SOCIAL COMMUNITY NETWORK
Discussion boards licensed and powered by ZoneX v. 3.0
Development supported by LifeForm Inc.
All Rights Reserved by RealPoor.com ©2005-2008 |
|
