I was talking about the United States Constitution. The states cannot make laws that contradict the US Constitution. They will not stand up in court. They are unconstitutional. You understand little of the process of government. Many courts are elected, many are appointed. It matters little either way. The political bodies, the judiciary, and the executives each have their function. There are checks and balances between these three branches. The courts duty is to uphold the law, not do the bidding of the public. If publicly elected officials attempt to make an unconstiutional law, then the courts correctly rule against it. It has nothing to do with the "libs". The "cons" file just as many suits.
Yeah I understand little. You're the one with a cartoon avatar my friend........anyway, the very checks and balances you speak of is what is in question. When you have an elected body that makes laws only to have the court attempt to write new law by changing the meaning, that is not a check. No one has a check over the Supreme Court.
I recorded and watched every question asked of Roberts and he answered every question they had. Did you watch any of the proceedings? Then how do you know he was being evasive? Cause the NY Times or the Harry Reid said so? How do you expect a Supreme Court nominee to say how he would vote on abortion when the whole job of the court is not to be for or against abortion. Their personal views don't matter one bit Red. Maybe you're the one that needs to go back and think about the role of the courts in this country.......but that's just it. You and DingleHarry Reid want someone who legislates from the bench, correct? You want someone that let's their personal beliefs overrule the Constitution because it's a "living, breathing document" isn't it? Living, breathing, changing to suit your needs right? Whatever and whatever on your polls. If 99.99999% wanted abortion in this country, as long as the courts rule that it falls under personal privacy, it's shaky law and always will be....waiting to be overturned as soon as enough people who follow the law gets on the court. Why not get your 58% together and pass a LAW mandating abortion is legal? Nothing saying you can't......do it and put the whole thing to rest then. Why sit and worry about every new justice who gets nominated......just make it law and you could have all 9 right-wingers and it wouldn't matter. But you can't...........these lying, hiding Libs won't do it cause then they would be exposed. They all want abortion legal to satisfy their base but not one of them wants their own hands dirty............
Why don't you just rant about what you believe, not what you imagine I believe. I'll speak for myself, thank you. Nothing overrules the Constitution. The justices see to that. You constantly confuse legislative and judicial responsibilites. Why don't you do it yourself? Abortion is already legal, chief. Get used to it! If you don't like that, then lobby Congress to make that amendment you love so much. Good luck with 38 percent popular support. Paranoia runs deep. This notion you have that the "libs" are somehow abusing the courts is ridiculous and you can't prove a word of it. You make less sense on every post.
You never speak for yourself. You attack people's posts but nothing is posted about what you believe. Then you can always say, "I never said I was a Democrat. Yeah, cause you never say anything really except "read this website cause that may be what I think." You really think nothing do you? It's said through polls or some data from some group that you agree with. What are you afraid of? You're just like these crazy Libs who can't tell anybody the America they really envision. The reason they can't is, no one agrees with them.....Prove a word of it......The right to die with the Schiavo case, any gay marriage case in court, suing gun makers, the New Haven private property seizure cases. All brought by Libs who can't win in the regular legislative process so they get the liberal courts to do their dirty work. And the courts answer to NO one. Explain to me how the legislative branch overrules or provides a balance for the Supreme Court? Explain that please. I don't care whether abortion is legal or not. I just don't think a nominee for the Supreme Court should have to sit there and be lectured by Kennedy about a "woman's right to choose." I don't care one way or the other friend.
Ha! I thought about asking him what conclusions he drew from somebody's avatar, but he's starting to get a little kooky, now. Did you read the last one? Whew! :lol: I suppose that Yosemite Sam is a damned lying liberal who gets the courts to do his dirty work. :rofl:
Yes. But unfortunately, it made little sense. All that I saw was a bunch of misguided labelling, generalizations, and thinly veiled attempts to discredit. Nowhere was I able to locate any semblance of an argument or representations of factual data. But everyone knows that Yosemite is a gun-toting Libertarian. That vegetarian, cross-dressing, gun-controlling Bugs Bunny is the true Liberal. Just ask Elmer!:hihi:
There was nothing thinly veiled about what I said. What I said is the God's truth and I guess I found the two "Libertarians" that can't see the truth. I asked questions about the courts being checked by the legislative branch......how? No answer..........when Yosemite wanted proof of the minority who can't win taking their left wing ideas to the court, I listed them....no answer. The attempt to discredit always comes from you two but with nothing added. Just website links and no original thought on anything. Just because you read some crap from "Planned Parenthood" or whatever commie website you link to, it doesn't make it so. Link to your own ideas.........but that's just it. You two have no original ideas.......except about whether or not Bugs Bunny was a liberal I guess.
Settle down, Beavis. If you want to find yourself engaged in a somewhat productive conversation, try avoiding the ridiculous generalizations. They only expose a simplistic mindframe.
