It’s time to call them all traitors and lock up all who threaten election officials r

Micawber said:
What you are referring to as "the deep end" is in reality now a standard talking point of the retarded right.
Ideas refined in the 1950s and mass manufactured and distributed in the 1980s are now tossed like chicken feed
in the right wing echo chamber. I forgot more Ayn Rand by 1985 than these diaper Nazis have ever known.
Click to expand...

The Republican party of the past would have no idea what is was looking at if it saw the Republican party of today. Nor respect. These people have truly lost their damn minds, their integrity, and their credibility. I have no idea how they're going to fix themselves, but as they continue to radicalize and the country's demographics continue to change, I think they will have a harder and harder time winning elections.
 
Micawber said:
Nobody tells anyone subjectively what their rights are. Hell Charlie Manson probably thought he simply had a bunch of rights and everyone else had very few.
Respectfully I subscribe to a social contract theory that we live in a society we inherited wherein a constitution was written and we endowed educated priests
call court judges to apply, expound and interpret what the application of the law is to cases and controversies presented to them. We also inherited a bulwark of
common law stare decisis from Britain which provides the basis for a calculus of case law and precedent which informs judges how novel cases should be decided,
rather than applying a code in a vacuum. This serves an important "certainty" function, in the Latin certum.

I can bore everyone forever.

Diesel is correct that current right wing ideologues are far far out of balance with any reasonable philosophy the framers had about political philosophy.
Click to expand...

Perfectly said. Good education. You could have been a professor.
 
Diesel said:
Bitch, I have an undergraduate degree in political science.
Click to expand...
you deserve a refund.

Diesel said:
I don't let liberal (or conservative politicians) tell me anything about political philosophy. I rely on professors and authors who spent their lifetimes researching the subject.
Click to expand...
well there's your problem.......you're still relying on others to tell you shit you should know on your own

Diesel said:
You might have read the Constitution. Maybe not. I don't care, though, because you don't understand it.
Click to expand...
I understand it clearly. the only thing you are understanding is the interpretation of it through others.........that's you being a failure as an american
 
Diesel said:
Uh oh. You're not even trying to respond to posts anymore except to lob lazy insults. Do you realize that no one in this thread agrees with you? You've been brainwashed by half-baked ideas and haven't even considered the implications.
Click to expand...

i'm not the one relying on others to tell me what our founding document means..........that would be you
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Prior to Marbury, who do you think was the decision maker when 2 laws were in conflict with each other? This goes back to English law.

It is the height of stupidity to think that the Founders would think courts have no place in decisions about laws that conflict with other laws. The Constitution specifically states that the courts shall have jurisdiction in "all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made"

If courts can't decide on the intent of a law then the Constitutionalist jurists are the worst offenders when it comes to interpreting the US Constitution.
Click to expand...

courts have jurisdiction, yes, but they do not have power to redefine, reinterpret, or define the limits of the governments powers. They are not to decide the intent of laws, just the plain wording and if it doesn't comport with the prescribed powers delegated to the government, the law is moot, invalid.

A better question to ask you would be 'in any case the courts hear, who has final say on whether the law is valid or not?'
 
Diesel said:
The Republican party of the past would have no idea what is was looking at if it saw the Republican party of today. Nor respect. These people have truly lost their damn minds, their integrity, and their credibility. I have no idea how they're going to fix themselves, but as they continue to radicalize and the country's demographics continue to change, I think they will have a harder and harder time winning elections.
Click to expand...

Yes, and Patty Hearst was once a sweet innocent deb. Then a hijack happened. Then she was photographed with an uzi pulling a bank job for the Simbionese (sp)?

Repuke party has been hijacked. And the rug has been pulled from under the normal republicans. These fools haven't hurt dems a fucking bit.
After all, we just won the presidency in a fucking LANDSLIDE. I say double down on crazy. Republicans are threatening me by holding a revolver to their own ears. :laugh:
 
I agree. Examples need to be made. What Conservatism is doing cannot be normalized. The GOP should be sanctioned, and every single attorney who brought forth a frivolous, bad faith lawsuit should be disbarred and sanctioned as well. Fox News should lose its broadcast license, and OAN and Newsmax should be shut the fuck down.

And every single state that signed onto this coup attempt should lose all federal funding provided by blue states. Be a maker state, not a taker state.
 
Micawber said:
Yes, and Patty Hearst was once a sweet innocent deb. Then a hijack happened. Then she was photographed with an uzi pulling a bank job for the Simbionese (sp)?

Repuke party has been hijacked. And the rug has been pulled from under the normal republicans. These fools haven't hurt dems a fucking bit.
After all, we just won the presidency in a fucking LANDSLIDE. I say double down on crazy.
Click to expand...

You know, the thing is, there is no difference between a MAGAt and a regular Republican. They're all the same. They believe everything Trump does. They can't be trusted to act responsibly.
 
LV426 said:
I agree. Examples need to be made. What Conservatism is doing cannot be normalized. The GOP should be sanctioned, and every single attorney who brought forth a frivolous, bad faith lawsuit should be disbarred and sanctioned as well. Fox News should lose its broadcast license, and OAN and Newsmax should be shut the fuck down.

And every single state that signed onto this coup attempt should lose all federal funding provided by blue states. Be a maker state, not a taker state.
Click to expand...

I totally agree. The reputation of the judicial branch is collateral damage if they do not sanction (in the negative sense) these frivolous and meritless bad faith suits.
The court needs to be somewhat insulated from political tides. That means not giving an inch to inertia or political gravity or impunity.
Irony is that this is how Republicans would say they'd like it to be in a pre Trump world. In the Fed arena Rule 11 serves this function in any suit,
and there is no exception for politically charged ones. And the lawyers, they need to be gatekeepers of their own suits.
 
LV426 said:
You know, the thing is, there is no difference between a MAGAt and a regular Republican. They're all the same. They believe everything Trump does. They can't be trusted to act responsibly.
Click to expand...

Well I concede the numbers bear that out. No profiles in courage on the right. Maybe Mitt and the Maine Senator whose name evades me for some reason.
 
Micawber said:
Well I concede the numbers bear that out. No profiles in courage on the right. Maybe Mitt and the Maine Senator whose name evades me for some reason.
Click to expand...

I mean, Romney did write off 47% of voters, he did bend the knee to Trump, and has voted with Trump over 80% of the time.

He also only voted to remove Trump on one of the articles of Impeachment, not both, which means he was kind of OK with Trump extorting Ukraine.

Romney is not to be trusted or held in high regard. He's a jellyfish. A cupcake. There's nothing there.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
you deserve a refund.


well there's your problem.......you're still relying on others to tell you shit you should know on your own


I understand it clearly. the only thing you are understanding is the interpretation of it through others.........that's you being a failure as an american
Click to expand...

Are you completely self-taught? Is that the problem? You've never been inside a classroom? I would believe that 100%. How did you escape the compulsory education laws?

You seem to think that absorbing the knowledge of others is a bad thing. That's how people learn, which explains why you don't know anything. I haven't relied on any single person's interpretation of the Constitution. I've consumed lessons, writings, and judicial decisions. Some of the things that were credible and rational influenced my context. Using that context, I have read the Constitution many times and developed a proper understanding of it. You're wrong; and you've been told that repeatedly by many people.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Prior to Marbury, who do you think was the decision maker when 2 laws were in conflict with each other? This goes back to English law.

It is the height of stupidity to think that the Founders would think courts have no place in decisions about laws that conflict with other laws. The Constitution specifically states that the courts shall have jurisdiction in "all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made"

If courts can't decide on the intent of a law then the Constitutionalist jurists are the worst offenders when it comes to interpreting the US Constitution.
Click to expand...

Agreed again. Marbury can be viewed as declaring a self evident axiom. Perhaps it was unnecessary to do so and they could have simply order the writ of mandamus.
(SmarterthanYou has never taken issue with Trump declaring himself plenipotent) despite checks and balances.

The court is not overstepping its bounds at all, IMO with Marbury. If its job is not interpreting Congresses law, then what is it?
Are they telling the congress what words to pen? Are they telling the potus he can't veto? No. Did they ever declare a war? Did they ever submit a Bill?
In some metaphysical sense, yes, they are "redrafting" enacted laws but only in the sense that the common law provides. When I write a sentence, I can't anticipate how it will be read,
but read it will be. And the reader decides what I meant. Are they breaking the law in this exercise of divining my intention and expressing their reasoning from my imperfect words? Did that injure the author?
They are doing the job they have to do, and if a poorly worded or vague statute says, I don't know, "thou shalt not kill" and someone kills a plaintiff's
goat and she sues, can judges say what the law is? Of fucking course. Ask SmarterthanYou if he would like the unwashed rabble bringing cases to congress.

Republicans clearly have not much grounding in the common law. A nice short pamphlet was written by O holmes. Maybe 100 pages
 
Last edited:
Diesel said:
Are you completely self-taught? Is that the problem? You've never been inside a classroom? I would believe that 100%. How did you escape the compulsory education laws?
Click to expand...
funny story about that public education system.............my history classes had NOTHING on the constitution. I had to actually read that document to understand it. You need to do the same instead of relying on government to tell you.

95143123_10219498438725873_5122927984398827520_n.jpg

Diesel said:
You seem to think that absorbing the knowledge of others is a bad thing. That's how people learn, which explains why you don't know anything. I haven't relied on any single person's interpretation of the Constitution. I've consumed lessons, writings, and judicial decisions. Some of the things that were credible and rational influenced my context. Using that context, I have read the Constitution many times and developed a proper understanding of it. You're wrong; and you've been told that repeatedly by many people.
Click to expand...

you have not developed a proper understanding of it if you think that the government defines its own power or that the courts are the final say in it............that's just stupid.

all of those who have told me i'm wrong are slaves, including you. stupid idiot slaves......

dangerousdoctrine.jpg
 
Micawber said:
Agreed again. Marbury can be viewed as declaring a self evident axiom. Perhaps it was unnecessary to do so and they could have simply order the writ of mandamus.
Click to expand...
stupid and wrong, as always

Micawber said:
(SmarterthanYou has never taken issue with Trump declaring himself plenipotent) despite checks and balances.
Click to expand...
bullshit selective memory sequences because you can't fathom the possibility of someone who doesn't denounce trump every second can also be non supportive........an example of your limited two dimensional mindset
 
LV426 said:
I mean, Romney did write off 47% of voters, he did bend the knee to Trump, and has voted with Trump over 80% of the time.

He also only voted to remove Trump on one of the articles of Impeachment, not both, which means he was kind of OK with Trump extorting Ukraine.

Romney is not to be trusted or held in high regard. He's a jellyfish. A cupcake. There's nothing there.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree. But I'll take what I can get. He's the best in that apple barrel. I voted against him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top