|
|
| Author |
Message |
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
 Posted: 12/10/03 - 21:10 Post subject: We need a new supreme court
|
|
|
|
OK, so the supreme court rules that it's everyones' inalianable right to sodomize and that a state which displays the ten commandments is in violation of the first amendment which states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" but upholds McCain-Feingold which is a congressional act that specifically prevents anyone from taking out a political ad (i.e. free speech) for a candidate in the weeks before an election. Seriously...what the f**k?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
 |
NinjaBurger
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 01 Sep 2003
Posts: 2800
Location: St. Louis
|
|
Posted: 12/10/03 - 21:21 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
What the f**k indeed?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 12/10/03 - 21:22 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
Indeed!
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
GruntingCod
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 6399
|
|
Posted: 12/10/03 - 21:23 Post subject:
|
|
|
Indeed Kenny!
MXE = best show on spike.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Rennol
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 3741
Location: Charleston, IL
|
|
Posted: 12/10/03 - 21:23 Post subject:
|
|
|
NWS you make the same tired arguments using the same flawed logic without understanding the rationale behind any of these decisions.
Congratulations.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 12/10/03 - 21:34 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Rennol wrote: | NWS you make the same tired arguments using the same flawed logic without understanding the rationale behind any of these decisions.
Congratulations. |
Shut the f**k up, parasite.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
Posted: 12/10/03 - 21:34 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Rennol wrote: | NWS you make the same tired arguments using the same flawed logic without understanding the rationale behind any of these decisions.
Congratulations. |
NWS is correct, again.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
ATM Banana
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 02 Jan 2003
Posts: 8575
|
|
Posted: 12/10/03 - 21:46 Post subject:
|
|
|
wow, bot of you have the cognitive capacity of a kindergartener.
either that, or you justify things so that they fit your views, which is pre-schooler style.
congrats, you jackasses.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
Posted: 12/10/03 - 21:49 Post subject:
|
|
|
| ATM Banana wrote: | wow, bot of you have the cognitive capacity of a kindergartener.
either that, or you justify things so that they fit your views, which is pre-schooler style.
congrats, you jackasses. |
ITS ASS KICKIN TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
ATM Banana
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 02 Jan 2003
Posts: 8575
|
|
Posted: 12/10/03 - 21:53 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
you are a kewl kbarr, pwn me up the butt to proove your point.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
Posted: 12/10/03 - 21:53 Post subject:
|
|
|
| ATM Banana wrote: | | you are a kewl kbarr, pwn me up the butt to proove your point. |
No.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
ATM Banana
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 02 Jan 2003
Posts: 8575
|
|
Posted: 12/10/03 - 21:58 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
fine, go mop the rug, w***e.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 12/10/03 - 22:21 Post subject:
|
|
|
It's all very simple. The supreme court no longer upholds the constitution. They uphold their arbitrary viewpoints. Let's review:
Sodomy: no constitutional provision guarantees sodomy (for those like Rennol and Akronn who like to go on irrelevant tangents, please provide me proof in the form of a specific quote from the constitution). However, the 10th amendment guarantees Texas' right to outlaw it. The supreme court ruled against the constitution.
10 commandments: no constitutional provision restricts a state (or federal) government from displaying the 10 commandments (for those like Rennol and Akronn who like to go on irrelevant tangents, please provide me proof in the form of a specific quote from the constitution). However, the 10th amendment guarantees Alabama's right to allow it. The supreme court ruled against the constitution.
McCain-Feingold: The first amendment specifically restricts congress from abridging the freedom of speech (for those like Rennol and Akronn who like to go on irrelevant tangents, please provide me proof in the form of a specific quote from the constitution). McCain-Feingold, which is an act of Congress, specifically abridges every American's right to run a political ad endorsing a candidate for several weeks before any election. This is clearly a violation of the first amendment. The supreme court ruled against the constitution.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Paco
RealPoor Jedi
Joined: 13 Oct 2002
Posts: 12940
Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
|
Posted: 12/10/03 - 22:29 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
so?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 12/10/03 - 22:35 Post subject:
|
|
|
An example of why pot is bad.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Zapper
RealPoor Sensei
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 1512
Location: Connecticut
|
|
Posted: 12/10/03 - 22:39 Post subject:
|
|
|
Saying you can't run an ad is not denying you your freedom of expression. They are ot saying you cann ot express your opinion. You can still express your views just not in an ad.
Yelling Fire!!!! in a crowded movie theater is against the law too isn't it?
By the way how many of these justices were nominated by Democratic Presidents?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 12/10/03 - 22:43 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Zapper wrote: | Saying you can't run an ad is not denying you your freedom of expression. They are ot saying you cann ot express your opinion. You can still express your views just not in an ad.
Yelling Fire!!!! in a crowded movie theater is against the law too isn't it?
By the way how many of these justices were nominated by Democratic Presidents? |
 Running a political ad does not endanger life. And it is a direct violation of speec (nowhere in the constitution is the word "expression") because it prevents people from endorsing a candidate. Anybody who disagrees with this fact is a moron.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
ATM Banana
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 02 Jan 2003
Posts: 8575
|
|
Posted: 12/10/03 - 22:43 Post subject:
|
|
|
you speak of the constitution as if its 500+ pages, like the bible or something, it takes about 10 minutes to read, and doesn't specifically address little bs things like this, mainly because it wasn't important back when it was created, laws of the sort didn't matter because sodomizing happens behind closed doors (in most cases) and if it happens in public its indecent exposure.
what i certainly don't get is why someone would make such a fuss about something that doesnt apply to them.
i swear you force your opinions down others throats like its humanly possible for people to see things your way.
try making everything you write clear and understandable with specific referances not bs like 'the 10nth ammendment' i'm sure everyone 1) knows exactly what it is, or 2) cares enough to find out.
tell us, without assuming we already know or care enough to find out.
here's the way i see it, people do what they want with other people as long as both parties are willing, does this violate some sort of moral code? maybe, but so does lying to people. you don't see people's nuts getting cut off for lying these days now do you? The Supreme court is made to interpret the law however they see fit, and if needed change it if basic rights are in jeapordy.
the constitution's first 10 ammendments were made shortly after the constitution, civil rights and liberties were included after the 10th ammendment.
what you are saying is true, the supreme court is not above the law.
what you stated here | wheresnws wrote: | | no constitutional provision guarantees sodomy |
and it doesnt guarantee **** via penis to vagina either. sorry, thats not a legitimite arguement.
in your arguement about the 10th ammendment, this was regarding POWERS, not LAWS, you fuckwit. the powers of law making are reserved for the judicial system only, jesus christ. you need to know what the f**k you're talking about before you start using it in your baised arguements.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 12/10/03 - 22:45 Post subject:
|
|
|
| ATM Banana wrote: | you speak of the constitution as if its 500+ pages, like the bible or something, it takes about 10 minutes to read, and doesn't specifically address little bs things like this, mainly because it wasn't important back when it was created, laws of the sort didn't matter because sodomizing happens behind closed doors (in most cases) and if it happens in public its indecent exposure.
what i certainly don't get is why someone would make such a fuss about something that doesnt apply to them.
i swear you force your opinions down others throats like its humanly possible for people to see things your way.
try making everything you write clear and understandable with specific referances not bs like 'the 10nth ammendment' i'm sure everyone 1) knows exactly what it is, or 2) cares enough to find out.
tell us, without assuming we already know or care enough to find out.
here's the way i see it, people do what they want with other people as long as both parties are willing, does this violate some sort of moral code? maybe, but so does lying to people. you don't see people's nuts getting cut off for lying these days now do you? The Supreme court is made to interpret the law however they see fit, and if needed change it if basic rights are in jeapordy.
the constitution's first 10 ammendments were made shortly after the constitution, civil rights and liberties were included after the 10th ammendment.
what you are saying is true, the supreme court is not above the law.
what you stated here | wheresnws wrote: | | no constitutional provision guarantees sodomy |
and it doesnt guarantee **** via penis to vagina either. sorry, thats not a legitimite arguement.
in your arguement about the 10th ammendment, this was regarding POWERS, not LAWS, you fuckwit. the powers of law making are reserved for the judicial system only, jesus christ. you need to know what the f**k you're talking about before you start using it in your baised arguements. |
10 pages...yet most of America, including you, doesn't understand a bit of it. That's why it's so easy for you to accept being ruled by a judicial oligarchy that constantly violates you constitutional right. Ignorance is bliss, I suppose.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Zapper
RealPoor Sensei
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 1512
Location: Connecticut
|
|
Posted: 12/10/03 - 22:47 Post subject:
|
|
|
William H. Rehnquist - President Nixon nominated him to the Supreme Court, and he took his seat as an Associate Justice on January 7, 1972. Nominated as Chief Justice by President Reagan, he assumed that office on September 26, 1986
Ruth Bader Ginsburg - nominated by President Clinton August 10, 1993.
Stephen Breyer - Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United States, August 3, 1994 (nominated by President Clinton)
John Paul Stevens - President Ford nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat December 19, 1975.
Sandra Day O'Connor - President Reagan nominated her as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and she took her seat September 25, 1981.
Antonin Scalia - President Reagan nominated him to the Supreme Court and he took his seat September 26, 1986.
Anthony M. Kennedy - President Reagan nominated him to the Supreme Court, and he took his seat February 18, 1988.
David Hackett Souter - President Bush nominated him to the Supreme Court, where he took his seat on October 9, 1990.
Clarence Thomas - President Bush nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court and he took his seat October 23, 1991.
Answer = 2
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
ATM Banana
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 02 Jan 2003
Posts: 8575
|
|
Posted: 12/10/03 - 22:53 Post subject:
|
|
|
wow, i feel so violated now that i'm allowed to sodomize people, nice one nws, way to make your point.
please tell me which constitutional right? or which rights for that matter, (i only ask wether it is plural or not because you missed the "s" after "you" in your last statement and thus made yourself sound oriental.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
hitachi
RealPoor Sensei
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 1507
Location: Maryland
|
|
Posted: 12/10/03 - 23:09 Post subject:
|
|
|
i think his point was more that, no where in the constitution does it guarantee an individual the right to sodomy, but it does guarantee a state the right to make it illegal.
them ruling against texas violates that states rights guaranteed in the constitution, or should we say not so guaranteed?
oh and i agree that the sodomy law is pretty stupid. but i agree on the other two examples he gave.
Last edited by hitachi on 12/10/03 - 23:13; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
quotison
RealPoor Sensei
Joined: 13 Oct 2002
Posts: 1594
|
|
Posted: 12/10/03 - 23:11 Post subject:
|
|
|
| ATM Banana wrote: | | you speak of the constitution as if its 500+ pages, like the bible or something, it takes about 10 minutes to read, and doesn't specifically address little bs things like this |
Well, the constitution, knowing that it doesn't 'specifically address little bs things' has this amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
I think NWS has a point that our supreme court oversteps its boundaries. Personally, though, a slight bending of the rules by the Supreme Court is far less worse then a huge bending of basic human rights by the state of Texas, outlawing a consentual and private act between two people. It might be constitutionally acceptable for Texas to do that, but it doesn't mean they should.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
Posted: 12/10/03 - 23:32 Post subject:
|
|
|
Of course he has a point, and a valid one. The problem is some people don't understand his point.
And that is not his fault:)
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 00:20 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Zapper wrote: | William H. Rehnquist - President Nixon nominated him to the Supreme Court, and he took his seat as an Associate Justice on January 7, 1972. Nominated as Chief Justice by President Reagan, he assumed that office on September 26, 1986
Ruth Bader Ginsburg - nominated by President Clinton August 10, 1993.
Stephen Breyer - Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United States, August 3, 1994 (nominated by President Clinton)
John Paul Stevens - President Ford nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat December 19, 1975.
Sandra Day O'Connor - President Reagan nominated her as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and she took her seat September 25, 1981.
Antonin Scalia - President Reagan nominated him to the Supreme Court and he took his seat September 26, 1986.
Anthony M. Kennedy - President Reagan nominated him to the Supreme Court, and he took his seat February 18, 1988.
David Hackett Souter - President Bush nominated him to the Supreme Court, where he took his seat on October 9, 1990.
Clarence Thomas - President Bush nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court and he took his seat October 23, 1991.
Answer = 2 |
I don't get it? Are you trying to say that the fact that Republicans appointed some very liberal judges in error that somehow those justices justified in ignoring the constitution in their rulings?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 00:26 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
This is all quite simple. Their rulings are not based on the constitution and often times go directly against it. The constitution is not complex. It is intentionally simple. Yet the courts routinely decide to completely ignore the text of the constitution in favor of personal prejudice. We have 5 people out of nearly 300 million setting all of our laws, now.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
lauren000
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 21 Oct 2002
Posts: 3510
Location: colorado springs
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 00:27 Post subject:
|
|
|
| hitachi wrote: | i think his point was more that, no where in the constitution does it guarantee an individual the right to sodomy, but it does guarantee a state the right to make it illegal.
them ruling against texas violates that states rights guaranteed in the constitution, or should we say not so guaranteed?
oh and i agree that the sodomy law is pretty stupid. but i agree on the other two examples he gave. |
life, liberty, and the persuit of d**k in anus hitachi. And atm, it's the legislative branches part to create new law, it's the judicial branche's responsibility to interpret it. Nws- stop throwing little hissy b***h fits like a limp-wristin nancy boy. For someone who is heterosexual you sure are highly interested in sodomy.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
WheresNWS
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 19 Nov 2002
Posts: 6448
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 00:28 Post subject:
|
|
|
| lauren000 wrote: | | hitachi wrote: | i think his point was more that, no where in the constitution does it guarantee an individual the right to sodomy, but it does guarantee a state the right to make it illegal.
them ruling against texas violates that states rights guaranteed in the constitution, or should we say not so guaranteed?
oh and i agree that the sodomy law is pretty stupid. but i agree on the other two examples he gave. |
life, liberty, and the persuit of d**k in anus hitachi. And atm, it's the legislative branches part to create new law, it's the judicial branche's responsibility to interpret it. Nws- stop throwing little hissy b***h fits like a limp-wristin nancy boy. For someone who is heterosexual you sure are highly interested in sodomy. |
Like I said, you perversion of **** orientation, why don't you quote the part of the constitution that guarantees sodomy, rather than blabbing your mouth about how much you like it in the butt because your fake p***y just doesn't do it for you.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
themy
Sir Postalot
Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 1153
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 00:33 Post subject: Re: We need a new supreme court
|
|
|
| WheresNWS wrote: | | OK, so the supreme court rules that it's everyones' inalianable right to sodomize and that a state which displays the ten commandments is in violation of the first amendment which states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" but upholds McCain-Feingold which is a congressional act that specifically prevents anyone from taking out a political ad (i.e. free speech) for a candidate in the weeks before an election. Seriously...what the f**k? |
hmm so you see who the f**k are you to say that people can't do what they want you f****r. are you God, no i don't f*****g think so. If you're a stupid b***h catholic who is way too into their religion and thinks God will punish those for being homosexual then LEAVE IT THE f**k AT THAT. And let them do what they want. If they are to be judged in the afterlife then let them be judged, don't inflict your own personal beliefs on anyone cause you do not have the power nor does any man have that power over another. Our society's values should not be placed in how one religion views how a man and another man wish to act. You people are the reason people are homophobic when your damn priests molest little boys. Organized religions can blow me if they think that homosexuals are going to hell cause they are f*****g wrong.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
lauren000
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 21 Oct 2002
Posts: 3510
Location: colorado springs
|
|
Posted: 12/11/03 - 00:33 Post subject:
|
|
|
| WheresNWS wrote: | | lauren000 wrote: | | hitachi wrote: | i think his point was more that, no where in the constitution does it guarantee an individual the right to sodomy, but it does guarantee a state the right to make it illegal.
them ruling against texas violates that states rights guaranteed in the constitution, or should we say not so guaranteed?
oh and i agree that the sodomy law is pretty stupid. but i agree on the other two examples he gave. |
life, liberty, and the persuit of d**k in anus hitachi. And atm, it's the legislative branches part to create new law, it's the judicial branche's responsibility to interpret it. Nws- stop throwing little hissy b***h fits like a limp-wristin nancy boy. For someone who is heterosexual you sure are highly interested in sodomy. |
Like I said, you perversion of **** orientation, why don't you quote the part of the constitution that guarantees sodomy, rather than blabbing your mouth about how much you like it in the butt because your fake p***y just doesn't do it for you. |
all men are created equal. Does that mean women aren't recreated equal? Is it all straight, white, rich men are created equal? Guarantee to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. Stop acting like such a victim, this law has very little bearing on your everyday encounters and I get the impression you're just looking to start drama. As allways really, you're trying to rile up a few select few people hoping to get some original response to the same rehashed b******t you peddle on a biweekly basis. And what does it say about our country when we're more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
