Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by SDR, Feb 10, 2010.
Not sure how old it is...
I have always liked Napolitano
This judge is a joke, he makes of the constitution what he wants. If he seriously thinks congress has no power to regulate non governmental agencies then he is bringing into question several hundred years of precedent legal decisions. I guess that must be the true mark of an activist judge.
As an example of the twisted web these judges make, how about this one, lobbies are allowed to operate under the free speech clause of the first amendment, but lobbies buy votes! Do you really think the founders intended the first amendment to be expanded to the extent that it makes a mockery of the entire document that preceeds this amendment? Heck no, and you don't need a law degree to figure that one out! and just a few weeks ago 5 of these rightie bozo judges decided that congress has no right to regulate direct political participation of corporations in the voting process. Yeap, justice is only the interests of the stronger party, sorry Socrates we were incapable of getting your message in a bottle!
Name a politician who doesn't do the same thing? How many wrong decisions have been made in the last several hundred years that we just accept because fixing or changing it would be to big of a shock to the system. I'd like to see the government start rolling back some of their bad legislature starting with basic violations of our rights(gun laws, patriot act, freedom of speech). All that said... once he hit the taxation is theft and property taxes are illegal I knew that he was just the loudest voice in the room.
Speaking of politicians who use the constitution for their own personal gains.
What really chaps my *** is the judges that interpret the 'meaning' of what a law says instead of reading it in a black vs white setting. They read 'into' and look at cases that have been won and lost on it and then decided their own personal meaning to it. That's what pisses me off more. Not the politicians but the Judiciary side of the government and their phuxing grey areas.
Agree 100%, interpretation is BS. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are both very simply written. There is no interpretation necessary but that is what our politicians and judges do... to their own advantage. This country was meant to be free, not strangled in interpretive legislature.
These judges and legislators that do this always have an underlying agenda trying to change and get away from the constitution. They are breaking their oath to uphold the constitution. Just an aside that bothers me still. When Obama took the oath of office with justice Roberts..Roberts screwed up (Obama did have his hand on the bible) When Obama finally said the oath properly. His hand was not on the bible when he swore that oath. It may not mean m,uch to most of you but it speaks volumes to me. What is an oath if it is not sworn on some holy thing? It does look like Obama is not a friend to our constitution. Only hope he changes as he learns.
This judge is Not a joke. He is a constitutionalist, and you sir, may not know the Constitution. Yes, there is 100 years of progressive's BS to undue. When our bankrupt Gov't runs out of credit and the game changes, we shall have to fix that...
The Constitution is an amazing document but it is only 12 pages long, and as such is vague. One element of this vaguery is the powers of the supreme court, sort of ironic. The Marshall court (1801-1835) took the power to decide constitutionality, that was not given directly by the constitution itself, in the case Marbury V. Madison. So, this brings up the question of how a strict constructionist could even serve on the present court without being a total hypocrite? Maybe while this bozo blows hard about what is and isn't constituional he could do us the service of demoting the supreme court from being arbitors of such matters, first!
I doubt the national debt will be the end of this nation. If our end is fiscal the derviatives traders will deal the death blow as they have in current unbacked insurance gambled a sum equal to 30 times our national debt, and in the event of SHTF that 1000 trillion will be due instantly, not nicely spaced out like our national debt. The real progressives are trying to regulate these markets but the amount of money these investment banks have to buy congress makes them too strong. A united public could do something about this, and should for their own good, but but forces in front of the power in America have us fighting over nonsense.