[karra]

sandorski sandorski:

karra karra:

$1:

The US Supreme Court has a bad case of being beaten with a Stupid stick.

Well, here's the thing - the members of the SCC don't get to put their personal slant on this or anything else that comes before them - their job, and their only job, is to interpret and uphold the law - that's it.

In this particular case - the justices were called to judge whether a mandate pushed out by the Obama administration in 2012 was in conflict with another law - the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, that was added to the books in 1992.

So, for those loitering in the dark, damp places they know and love so very well - to suggest, as Harry Reid did yesterday, that these nine lawyers (not doctors or teachers) five of whom are male - that the male members of the SCC not render a legal opinion on things female is totally bile inducing.

The rancor emanating from the fools on the left is based on a constant and perpetual state of ignorance - at best - which leads one to ask: Who exactly is being beaten with a Stupid stick?

Yet they have done just that numerous times.

I look forward to reading the legitimate proof you have of that claim. . . .

[BartSimpson]

karra karra:

sandorski sandorski:

Yet they have done just that numerous times.

I look forward to reading the legitimate proof you have of that claim. . . .

Sandorski is correct. The most recent and egregious example of the Supreme Court rewriting a law was when Chief Justice Roberts, all by himself, decided that the illegal penalty in Obamacare was actually a legal tax. Had Roberts acted correctly he'd have tossed out the entire law as it had no severalty clause written into it. Instead he took it upon himself to legislate from the bench and rewrite a law.

Judicial legislation, such as creating a right to gay marriage when no such right existed before, or creating a right to abortion when no such right existed before, is an insult to the Constitution. It's not the place of the Court to create legislation, it is their place to rule on it.

Reigning in judicial activism...even the activism I might like...is one of the things that I hope gets addressed in the upcoming Convention of the States.

[karra]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

karra karra:

sandorski sandorski:

Yet they have done just that numerous times.

I look forward to reading the legitimate proof you have of that claim. . . .

Sandorski is correct. The most recent and egregious example of the Supreme Court rewriting a law was when Chief Justice Roberts, all by himself, decided that the illegal penalty in Obamacare was actually a legal tax. Had Roberts acted correctly he'd have tossed out the entire law as it had no severalty clause written into it. Instead he took it upon himself to legislate from the bench and rewrite a law.

Judicial legislation, such as creating a right to gay marriage when no such right existed before, or creating a right to abortion when no such right existed before, is an insult to the Constitution. It's not the place of the Court to create legislation, it is their place to rule on it.

Reigning in judicial activism...even the activism I might like...is one of the things that I hope gets addressed in the upcoming Convention of the States.

Sandorski may well be correct - however, I asked him to provide legitimate proof of 'numerous times' - you have mentioned one unsupported instance, and he has offered zip - not to be confused with...

[BartSimpson]

karra karra:

Sandorski may well be correct - however, I asked him to provide legitimate proof of 'numerous times' - you have mentioned one unsupported instance, and he has offered zip - not to be confused with...

Keep in mind I'm not on his 'side' in this or any other argument, I'm simply letting you know that he got this one right. If he hadn't I'd be joyfully antagonizing him as usual.

My point is that if I, of all people, am saying Sandorski got one right then please accept it as opposed to giving him the satisfaction of making you eat crow.

[karra]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

karra karra:

Sandorski may well be correct - however, I asked him to provide legitimate proof of 'numerous times' - you have mentioned one unsupported instance, and he has offered zip - not to be confused with...

Keep in mind I'm not on his 'side' in this or any other argument, I'm simply letting you know that he got this one right. If he hadn't I'd be joyfully antagonizing him as usual.

My point is that if I, of all people, am saying Sandorski got one right then please accept it as opposed to giving him the satisfaction of making you eat crow.

I get all that - but the question remains, to Sandorski - support your statement that the SCC has done this numerous times in the past - not quite sure why you are responding for him - you provided one unsupported instance - he supposes plural.

[BartSimpson]

Duelin_Dalt Duelin_Dalt:

My daddy says I'm the best kisser in the whole world!

[raydan]

Good trolls are so hard to find... this one is just lacking intelligence, imagination, command of the language and only has about a 30 word vocabulary.

[2Cdo]

raydan raydan:

Good trolls are so hard to find... this one is just lacking intelligence, imagination, command of the language and only has about a 30 word vocabulary.

30? I think you give him too much credit.