|
|
| Post Number: 81
|
Common Citizen 
Group: Members
Posts: 4818
Joined: Jul. 2006
|
 |
Posted on: Dec. 04 2007,12:03 pm |
|
   |
Ya I thought that was clever...
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 82
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 04 2007,12:09 pm |
|
 |
QUOTE It's shocking really, the personal liberty that's been taken away from us. The liberty guaranteed by the constitution. The numerous and blatant examples are too lengthy to post here. If there are that many examples, it should be EASY for you to come up with some. 
It isn't hard to come up with examples of judicial activism--
*"finding" something in the Constitution that allows the government to control guns
*"finding" within the Constitution that laws don't have to be written by any deliberative body--they can just be implemented by a Federal agency
*"finding" within the Constitution that though there are THREE LEGAL DOCUMENTS to the contrary, numerous witnesses, and photographs--that the judge THINKS she knows what the indians were thinking over 150 years ago--and now have rights to spear fish outside the limits in MN. and Wisconsin
* "finding" that there is a prohibition against display of religion in public places--though every courthouse has a reference to it, Congress opens with prayer, it is in the very Constitution and Declaration of Independence that guarantees our rights, and it is on our currency.
* "finding" within the Constitution that cities have the right to take property from individuals--even when not needed for public works, because it is "for the public good". Whatever happened to the item in the Bill of Rights prohibiting "unreasonable search and seizure"?
* "finding" that homosexuals have a RIGHT to sodomy?
* "finding" that discrimination is illegal in SOME cases, but discrimination in the form of "affirmative action" in others IS legal--the Michigan case where a top student was kept out of school because he was white, and the school needed to include more black students.
All of these things were "found" in the Constitution--even though they weren't written--and "interpreted" by liberal judges.
Don't forget that it was the liberal Supreme Court under Rooseveldt that passed the Marijuana Control Act in 1937! nullMy Webpage
You, of all people, should be most afraid of the judiciary exercising powers not specifically given to them. Can you imagine being charged with a crime--there is no statute on the books prohibiting it--but some judge "found" that it was illegal?
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 83
|
Common Citizen
Group: Members
Posts: 4818
Joined: Jul. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 04 2007,12:20 pm |
|
|
^it'll be a while...he's searching...BEEP BEEP 
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 84
|
TameThaTane
Group: Members
Posts: 6300
Joined: May 2005
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 04 2007,12:25 pm |
|
|
Eminent domain-take from the poor and give to the rich like a reverse Robin Hood
Search and seizure-Roadblocks netting everyone without probable cause. Seizing assets without the need for even a criminal conviction. The legal fiction of declaring property guilty of a crime.
Rebuking medical necessity as a defense for terminally ill cannabis users. How much pure hate does it take to deny a substance, that hasn't been shown to kill anyone, (aspirin causes thousands of deaths per year) for a terminally ill patient. This is so sick, so hate filled it defies any logic. It's like putting a teacher to death for naming a Teddy Bear Mohamed. No, it's worse.
Numerous homeland security issues, from warrant-less home searches to Internet based snooping.
The list goes on and on....
This is an ultra right wing court and Robertson knows he's one man shy of making hundreds of thousands of women murderers. We can't afford anymore ultra right wing judges.
--------------
My choice is what I choose to do,
And if I'm causing no harm, it shouldn't bother you.
Your choice is who you choose to be,
And if you're causin' no harm, then you're alright with me.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 85
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 04 2007,2:29 pm |
|
|
QUOTE Search and seizure-Roadblocks netting everyone without probable cause. Sorry--that was upheld by the liberal Warren Court in 1968
QUOTE Seizing assets without the need for even a criminal conviction These were heard in 1992. Dissenting? Conservatives See here. QUOTE JUSTICE STEVENS, joined by JUSTICE BLACKMUN, JUSTICE O'CONNOR, and JUSTICE SOUTER,
QUOTE The legal fiction of declaring property guilty of a crime. I would assume that is in conjunction with the case above. Or do you think that finding PROPERTY "guilty" is a reference to the libbie prediliction to blame inanimate objects (guns, SUV's, buildings) for the crimes of their owners?
QUOTE Rebuking medical necessity as a defence for terminally ill cannabis users. Would that be the 2005 Gonzales vs. Raich decision? Note that the CONSERVATIVES supported legalization--the liberal majority did not. SEE HERE QUOTE Joining Justice John Paul Stevens's majority decision were Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote separately to say he agreed with the result, though not the majority's reasoning. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas dissented.
QUOTE Numerous homeland security issues, from warrant-less home searchs to internet based snooping.
And HOW MANY prosecutions have there been under the Patriot act--an act that wasn't enacted at all by activist judges, but almost unanimously by CONGRESS--and renewed by a more liberal Congress?
Sorry--maintaining that the Supreme Court is QUOTE an ultra right wing court just because they won't legalize weed like you want them to just doesn't fly.
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 86
|
TameThaTane
Group: Members
Posts: 6300
Joined: May 2005
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 04 2007,2:44 pm |
|
|
I thought you said it was the liberals on the court that wouldn't allow states to legalize?
--------------
My choice is what I choose to do,
And if I'm causing no harm, it shouldn't bother you.
Your choice is who you choose to be,
And if you're causin' no harm, then you're alright with me.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 87
|
Common Citizen
Group: Members
Posts: 4818
Joined: Jul. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 04 2007,2:45 pm |
|
|
What are the odds of these two being on the same ticket? I don't think Billary would ever consider playing second fiddle to another man like she did in the 90's.
Attached Image
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 88
|
TameThaTane
Group: Members
Posts: 6300
Joined: May 2005
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 04 2007,2:49 pm |
|
|
I don't get. You show where liberal judges were responsible for not decriminalizing cannabis for medical necessity, then say, "just because they won't legalize weed like you want them to just doesn't fly."
Well, which is it? Who won't legalize? Who are they?... conservatives? The right wing court you quoted?
--------------
My choice is what I choose to do,
And if I'm causing no harm, it shouldn't bother you.
Your choice is who you choose to be,
And if you're causin' no harm, then you're alright with me.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 89
|
|
|
| Post Number: 90
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 04 2007,3:11 pm |
|
|
The four Conservatives cited voted for legalization in 2005. Unfortunately, they were in the minority.
When I said "They won't legalize it" I was referring to the Supreme Court in total.
To my knowledge, there hasn't been a test case certified to the Supreme Court since then. What does High Times have to say?
The Supreme Court has hardly been "extreme right wing", has it?
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
