"If you want change, win an election!"

*Newsflash* *Newsflash* *Newsflash* *Newsflash* *Newsflash*

They did win their elections, that is why they are Congresscritters.

*Newsflash* *Newsflash* *Newsflash* *Newsflash* *Newsflash*
 
get my ass kicked?

Dude your the one that is claiming random internets bullshit lies are valid.

im the one with the SCOTUS agreeing with me.


Your party has gone all Charlie sheen
 
Taft2016 said:
Their authority to strike down laws is an authority they bestowed upon themselves.
Click to expand...

can't agree with that actually......they have the authority to strike down laws that violate the constitution.....what they've taken upon themselves is the authority to shape the law based not upon what the Constitution requires, but based upon what they would like to see happen.......
 
Dantès said:
If you think you can shrink yourself to prosperity idiot you and the rest of your ignorant throw-backs to the Know Nothings need to educate themselves, maybe read a couple of books.
Click to expand...

except....we've had five years of the exact opposite and where has THAT brought us.......
 
Taft2016 said:
Oh. Yes, yes, yes. Of course, it's all "bullshit." :rolleyes:

In the unlikely event you ever wish to learn something, Google names like "Johnny Chung," "Charlie Trie," and "Dr. Wen Ho Lee."

And you can also Google Clinton campaign donor Loral Corporation, who the administration gave authorization to sell missile guidance technology to the Chinese.

And that, only a short time after a Chinese general had threatened to "incinerate Los Angeles."
Click to expand...

don't forget the nuns who held the fundraiser for Gore.....
 
and yet you REFUSE to looik at the court documents which PROVE your republican party has to CHEAT to win elections and should not even have been in control in a democracy
 
PostmodernProphet said:
can't agree with that actually......they have the authority to strike down laws that violate the constitution.....what they've taken upon themselves is the authority to shape the law based not upon what the Constitution requires, but based upon what they would like to see happen.......
Click to expand...

No, they actually assumed that power upon themselves long ago. There was a popular perception among the Founders that their role was one of "advise and consent" to the legislature.
 
evince said:
Dude your the one that is claiming random internets bullshit lies are valid.
Click to expand...

If you did the Google as I suggested, you would find this information on websites like Time, Newsweek, CNN, etc.

Admittedly they *ARE* on the "internets," however dismissing these esteemed liberal sources as "random internets bullshit lies" doesn't seem fair.
 
why should I google anything you say?


YOU refuse court documented FACTS that prove your party has to CHEAT to win elections and the SCOTUS agrees
 
Taft2016 said:
No, they actually assumed that power upon themselves long ago. There was a popular perception among the Founders that their role was one of "advise and consent" to the legislature.
Click to expand...

odd then that they were made a "court"......what other court just advises?.....your claim turns a balance of power into an imbalance.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
odd then that they were made a "court"......what other court just advises?.....your claim turns a balance of power into an imbalance.....
Click to expand...

Well, consider; what other courts existed in the world at that time that could strike down laws? You're viewing this from the vantage point of today, where this is commonplace.

Some of the Founders foresaw the problem of a judiciary unaccountable to the electorate, overuling the will of the electorate, and being able to issue rulings on whimsy.

I don't see this current practice as a balance, particularly when justices are legislating.
 
Taft2016 said:
Well, consider; what other courts existed in the world at that time that could strike down laws? You're viewing this from the vantage point of today, where this is commonplace.

Some of the Founders foresaw the problem of a judiciary unaccountable to the electorate, overuling the will of the electorate, and being able to issue rulings on whimsy.

I don't see this current practice as a balance, particularly when justices are legislating.
Click to expand...

the original source was Geneva, Switzerland based upon the ideas of John Calvin......his protestant followers brought many of those ideas to England, they were further evolved here.......
 
Taft2016 said:
Well, consider; what other courts existed in the world at that time that could strike down laws? You're viewing this from the vantage point of today, where this is commonplace.

Some of the Founders foresaw the problem of a judiciary unaccountable to the electorate, overuling the will of the electorate, and being able to issue rulings on whimsy.

I don't see this current practice as a balance, particularly when justices are legislating.
Click to expand...

if you think that a member of the judiciary has overstepped his or her constitutional authority, impeach them. if not, stfu.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top