If the government forces you to give birth to a child,

And the real point I think you're deflecting, abortion is not a civil right that was passed by any legislature, ratified by any states, or voted on by any member of the electorate.

It was literally just crammed down our throats by a few people regardless of whether or not anyone wanted it, save for a few more people.

And that, is unconstitutional.
 
Last edited:
]2epo]v[an said:
Are you trying to tell me my previous citations never happened or are you saying you just never read them. Not sure which. And no, just because people use them in political discourse does not then make them any less meaningful nor dies it detract that they are used objectively either. You're really just making excuses.
Click to expand...

When misused in political discourse it makes them meaningless. When "activist judges" is used to criticize an opinion a person opposes but ignores that same judicial activism for decisions he like, it destroys the actual meaning of that term. For example, the right wanted the court to strike down Obamacare which the court did not do. If it had, it would be a perfect example of activism--substituting the judgment of the court for that of the legislature.
 
]2epo]v[an said:
So then why haven't grease balls used the opportunity to cash in on the winnings they could earn on it? They cash in on dope through the various junky faggot cults. Why would they skip shaking down a booky?

And on the topic of what kind of sht the Bible doesn't mention.. Why doesn't it mention Jesus sounds just like "marry zeus" in the original roman tongue(the faggot god of the faggot people that killed the guy you're talking about.) Are we seeing a pattern here yet? Seems like, if you actually believed in the thing, you'd be able to guess that it's a warning to you about the people selling it to you, and I don't just mean the Bible, I also mean the dope

Take Uncle Dutch for instance, never will you find a bigger gay for jesus junky faggot desperately ready to write homophiliac daydreams, quotes law like it was his God, on some self professed crusade against pedophiles all while freebasing afghan pederast heroin cartel dope and completely denying jHoe obiden and hillbillery's afghan pederast heroin cartel buddies. The people they just imported to the United States without ever having even been given a drug test.

Now, it's a 12b to say nambla but nazi-nambla wouldn't even begin to cover it. These are literally homosexual supremacist we're talking about. And they're on both sides of the isle.

Wake up sheeple.
Click to expand...


You must accept Jesus as your Personal Savior. He died for your sins. You can still go to Heaven. Cast the Demons aside, 2EPO.
 
]2epo]v[an said:
And the real point I think you're deflecting, abortion is not a civil right that was passed by any legislature, ratified by any states, or voted on by any member of the electorate.

It was literally just crammed down our throats by a few people regardless of whether or not anyone wanted it, save for a few more people.

And that, is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Untrue. Before Roe abortion was legal in twenty states. So, it was passed by the legislatures in those states, and signed by the governor. All those legislators and governors were elected by the voters of those states.
 
Flash said:
When misused in political discourse it makes them meaningless. When "activist judges" is used to criticize an opinion a person opposes but ignores that same judicial activism for decisions he like, it destroys the actual meaning of that term.
Click to expand...

You're presenting illogic. Using a term increases its meaning not visi versi.

Can you think of a scenario where saying "activist judges" reduces its meaning? How many other scenarios can you imagine where a term like that might be used other than a criticism? You're attempting to impeach "criticism" itself, I think. "Activist judge" basically means a judge that has ruled by political bias. That this might be used in politically biased discourse is obvious, not meaningless. Furthermore, simply because "activist judges" might be used in conjunction with "legistlation by judiciary" does not then impeach the meaning behind "legistlation by judiciary".

And I don't agree with your example being nescisarily true. It may or it may not. The one who said it may or may not be speaking in a partisan manner and may be speaking regardless of their partisanship. And the ruling could very well be a legitimate ruling. Never ever ever should a judge be a partisan, but that's not to say they never are. Suggesting a judge is a partisan is a scathing criticism of that judge, imo.

And you haven't shown basis for continuing an invalidation of diferent types of legistlation methods.
 
Last edited:
Flash said:
Untrue. Before Roe abortion was legal in twenty states. So, it was passed by the legislatures in those states, and signed by the governor. All those legislators and governors were elected by the voters of those states.
Click to expand...

Please substantiate this. Just because something was legal does not then mean there is a law to make it legal, quite the opposite. All things are legal till illegalized.
 
Jack said:
You must accept Jesus as your Personal Savior. He died for your sins. You can still go to Heaven. Cast the Demons aside, 2EPO.
Click to expand...

You're a faggot praying to a faggot god, or a douchebag faggot being a doughy faggot. Either way, you're a faggot. Go away faggot.
 
If it had, it would be a perfect example of activism--substituting the judgment of the court for that of the legislature.
Click to expand...

You're confusing political bodies for governmental entities. Example, criticizing democrats is not criticizing the government. Threatening the Republicans is not threatening the legistlature. Ruling in the way Republicans would rather but for legitimate reasons is not ruling at the request of the legistlature.
 
]2epo]v[an said:
You're presenting illogic. Using a term increases its meaning not visi versi.

Can you think of a scenario where saying "activist judges" reduces its meaning? How many other scenarios can you imagine where a term like that might be used other than a criticism? You're attempting to impeach "criticism" itself, I think. "Activist judge" basically means a judge that has ruled by political bias. That this might be used in politically biased discourse is obvious, not meaningless. Furthermore, simply because "activist judges" might be used in conjunction with "legistlation by judiciary" does not then impeach the meaning behind "legistlation by judiciary".
Click to expand...

Your definition of the term is a perfect example of reducing its meaning. Your definition of the term could apply to any case regardless of the decision if the judge is biased. That is completely distorts the real meaning of the term.
 
Flash said:
When the court makes a ruling, that ruling becomes law (but not necessarily legislation). The next similar case uses that same court ruling to determine the law--that is stare decisis.
Click to expand...

No, that's just case law that has already been legistlated under stare decesis being used to rule a case.

Stare decesis is the making of case law, not the use of case law.
 
Flash said:
Your definition of the term is a perfect example of reducing its meaning. Your definition of the term could apply to any case regardless of the decision if the judge is biased. That is completely distorts the real meaning of the term.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't, but also go on to say activist judges would also be used to denote not only improperly ruling on political bias but also in a way that bends or breaks the law itself. I could go on explaining the use of activist judges more deeply but why write a book about a red herring. activist judges, is not central or tangential to any point I'm making about "legistlation by judiciary" but being that you even refute that legistlation by judiciary is a real thing, I feel you have to accept that laws legistlated purely by the judiciary are weaker than laws passed by a legislative body or by direct will of the people.
 
Stare decesis is passing a law by the decision of a court, not the use of established case law to determine a case. Stare decisis is very literally, "legistation by judiciary." It is an ancient principle dating as far back as ancient Egypt. If you're still having difficulty accepting that, there's very little I can do to help.
 
Jack said:
REPENT, 2epo! Cast the Demons from your soul. Remember, only through Christ can you find Salvation.
Click to expand...

Go to hell, you were duely informed. Instead you chose to be a reprobate. Your house was on fire and you were told despite no one having any duty to tell you

Other than that, you're just a faggot. Go die.
 
]2epo]v[an said:
Go to hell, you were duely informed. Instead you chose to be a reprobate. Your house was on fire and you were told despite no one having any duty to tell you

Other than that, you're just a faggot. Go die.
Click to expand...

2epo.
I have placed my hand upon your name and prayed to our heavenly father.

Sadly, I have been informed that when Jesus comes back, he's going to kick your ass from here to kingdom come.
First, he's going to punch you in the face.
Then, he's going to put you in a headlock and start punching you, and punching you, and punching you, until he sees your teeth fall out.
Then, he's going to throw you on the ground and start stomping your face, stomping your face, stomping your face, until your nose is broken and your eye falls out.

Then ... he's going to ask if your mind is right. If you answer wrongly ... it will only get worse. You have NO IDEA how bad this can get.
 
Jack said:
2epo.
I have placed my hand upon your name and prayed to our heavenly father.

Sadly, I have been informed that when Jesus comes back, he's going to kick your ass from here to kingdom come.
First, he's going to punch you in the face.
Then, he's going to put you in a headlock and start punching you, and punching you, and punching you, until he sees your teeth fall out.
Then, he's going to throw you on the ground and start stomping your face, stomping your face, stomping your face, until your nose is broken and your eye falls out.

Then ... he's going to ask if your mind is right. If you answer wrongly ... it will only get worse. You have NO IDEA how bad this can get.
Click to expand...

OK now you're just being a jackass

And I'm calling your story homophilia day dreams.
 
]2epo]v[an said:
OK now you're just being a jackass

And I'm calling your story homophilia day dreams.
Click to expand...

Dude. You had your chance. YOU fucked up. Now ... Christ is going to bust you up man. He's going to turn you into a little crybaby. Calling for your Mommy.
I warned you, ... but you didn't listen.
 
]2epo]v[an said:
And the real point I think you're deflecting, abortion is not a civil right that was passed by any legislature, ratified by any states, or voted on by any member of the electorate.

It was literally just crammed down our throats by a few people regardless of whether or not anyone wanted it, save for a few more people.

And that, is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

By virtue of the privacy concept, the Supreme Court declared it a legal right of women. That means they have constitutional right to have an abortion, a legal health procedure in America. Tha states are trying to take that away on their own.
 
]2epo]v[an said:
Reads pretty faggoty to me.
Click to expand...

Yeah. You talk your shit now. But when Jesus and some of the Apostles come out of a dark alley and fuck you up, you'll be singing a different tune.
I have this Vision. You, waking up inside a Dumpster, no shoes, no wallet, no front tooth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top