Perfect! We'll make him a judge. Wait... He already is one.

 

To me, the most fascinating thing about this thread is that "google" is now accepted as a verb.

Especially since it was written above:

 

Raoul.....your a smart guy, but at the same time your a hoot. I dont know what to think sometimes.

 

I'm still not positive he's a jackass.

Let's see, those with differing opinions are idiots and he talks about himself in the third person....

....hmmmmm tough call.

 

That depends on the situation. If I say 2+2=4 and you go off into some rant about how 'we don't really know for sure if that is correct, because a lot of things have changed since that was decided,' then you're an idiot.

Judicial interpretation has been a key component in the furtherment of the Liberal agenda over the years. Without it, and a few stacked courts, it would be up to the people, through their elected representatives, to decide what abortion and gun control laws should look like. As loud as they are, they just don't have the public support on their side for key issues. That's why the Libs, who seem to make up the leadership of the Democratic Party, have made so much noise about qualified Presidential appointments to the courts. (Clarence Thomas reportedly still has grill marks on his ***.) It's a major blow to their ability to impose their "superior" views on the stupid unwashed in Fly-over Country, USA.

 

YOW! I loved that one! Excellent interpretation Kobi!

 

We've noticed!!!!!!






























Just kidding!!!!!! Don't send anyone to punch me out!

 

First, great post…

Second I have to “kind of” disagree with the above quote. While I understand what your stating I believe that the ability to amend the Constitution is a means to change it.

For example, the 18th Amendment made it illegal to manufacture, sale and transport intoxication liquors.

The 21st Amendment made it legal to manufacture, sale and transport intoxicating liquors. You could do the same for any other Amendment such as the 1st or 2nd or any other you wish to change, take out, edit, etc.

I also disagree with another statement about states having any rights to make any changes or laws that affect every individuals rights guaranteed by the Constitution. States that have gun laws have laws, in my opinion, that are indeed unconstitutional. The Constitution gives absolutely NO rights to states to make any changes to those rights guaranteed.

The only rights states have is that they can make laws and deal with things NOT in the Constitution. A good example is that some states could completely outlaw abortions while others could have it legal. That would be so because there is no Constitutional right to an abortion and thus it is up to the individual states to deal with it as they see fit.

 

Never would I do such a thing.

 

The problem is with having 9 people who have so much power, they are not accountable to anybody and they hold the position as long as they want to.

Abortion wouldn't be such a hot button issue if it were voted on by majority rule instead of having an edict handed down by the supreme court.

Courts are to interpret laws, not make them!

 

Well technically if google is a search engine and I use the word to indicate searching would that simply be a change in part of speech leaving the definition essentially unchanged?

Obvously words can take on new meanings over time but that isnt what I meant. I suspect you knew this and I wont go into it any further.

 

I think the judge is an idiot.

He made it all the way to the Supreme Court and doesn't get the difference between Common Law (English) and Civil Law (French)

 

French Civil law (the basis of laws in France, Quebec and former French colonies around the world) is the "written in stone" concept. The law is the law, the punishment is the punishment.

English common law (England, USA, Canada, former English colonies around the world) are living laws. They are based on the fact that a society changes, judges can apply the laws and previous rulings to new rulings.

To better understand this, ever see a legal drama on TV or in the theater where the lawyers look to old cases for precedents and different interpretations of the law?


The whole reason the Supreme Court even exists is to hear arguments on the interpretation of law.

If the COnstitution and laws are finite and aboslute, then there is no need for a Supreme Court and Justice Scalia is out of a job.

 

Fine theory...

gosh I hope we don't interrept freedom of speech to mean the freedom to speak when granted, or the right to bear arms to mean we are born with the right to two appendages attached to our torso.

Golly I love Judicial rule...lets just do away with Congress all together. Because it doesn't matter what law is written we can just interrept them to mean whatever we want whenever we want.

I pledge allegiance to the Oligarchy of the United States of America...

 

Congress is irrelevant because we have a President protecting us.