Craig Chilton <

"Mike" (who, as a supporter of shameful bigotry,
hasn't the guts to put his full name to his posts) wrote:

Craig Chilton <

Bruce <pam.bruce@verizon.net> wrote:>

The majority of Americans don't support these policies, ...

Wrong. See above.

...and much of the world thinks we are evil because of them.

Yeah. The Islamic nations. Which are even MORE repressive than
our American version of the Taliban -- the RRR cultists. Try asking
the *Europeans* what **they** think of the stultified and Dark Ages
philosophy that losers like YOU promote.

I hope this doesn't get us nuked. If God was protecting America
he might not anymore.

Oh, He probably will, after jerks like you stop making a MOCKERY
of His compassion.
[ ... ]

And why do you assume that an appointee made by
the current administration would be any more conservative
than any made by Republican administrations in the past
25 years?

Two words: Clarence Thomas. If the majority of justices
were like him, America would become a theocracy!

It's too bad they weren't all like Clarence Thomas. If more
were like Clarence Thomas we wouldn't have to worry about
gay adoptions and abortions.

Another hate-filled and bone-ignorant MORON heard from.

There is NOTHING wrong with gays adopting, and abortion is nothing
more than an enormously-valuable REMEDY for an unwanted medical
condition. Obviously, when brains were being distributed, they
probably were down to their last two neurons when they got to you.

Both of these practices were never voted on, but were
legislated from the bench by liberal activist judges.

"Liberal activist judges." Boy, have YOU ever been brainwashed
by the RRR cult like a good little witless cultist. You've got their
lame and lying jargon down pat, and thus make an instant total fool of
yourself when you post. AND, of course, AS such a cultist, you don't
have a CLUE how the Constitution is set up. So for the sake of the
NON-programmed-cultists out there, I'll review that for a moment. ---

<snip wonderful essay>
I just wanted to butt in and say, Bravo, Craig. A truly excellent
rebuttal to right-wing lies. Definitely a keeper.

RRR: Religious Right Republicans?
Ronald Reagan Rightwingers?
Radical Racist Repressors?
Religious Republican Reprobates?

--
Peacenik

What else is new! Another screeching self-righteous, hate-filled rant by
Craig. All that is missing is the storm trooper boots, the club, and the
symbol. Summed up, his argument goes, "These things who are dispensed

are not human beings I tell you. You waste your sympathy on them. They

predators, feeding on our fine culture. They stand in the way of better
days for all of us. Since we say they are not human, we cannot be accused
of killing them. You, who fight us, are stupid and ignorant. We are the
master race, in charge now, and you will all be better off because we are

charge. The law is what we, with our superior intelligence, say it is.
You, who believe something can be superior to us, are foolish. Nothing is
superior to us. We are graciously telling you what is acceptable religion
as we did once before and religion can only be what we say is acceptable.
You are free to practice anything else behind closed doors and you must
thank us for that permission. However, that permission may be revoked if

feel the need. Now shut up before we need to get physical with non-humans
like you. Now shout Heil Craig as you raise your arm in the proper

Craig Chilton <

"Mike" (who, as a supporter of shameful bigotry,
hasn't the guts to put his full name to his posts) wrote:

Craig Chilton <

Bruce <pam.bruce@verizon.net> wrote:

And why do you assume that an appointee made by
the current administration would be any more conservative
than any made by Republican administrations in the past
25 years?

Two words: Clarence Thomas. If the majority of justices
were like him, America would become a theocracy!

It's too bad they weren't all like Clarence Thomas. If more
were like Clarence Thomas we wouldn't have to worry about
gay adoptions and abortions.

Another hate-filled and bone-ignorant MORON heard from.

There is NOTHING wrong with gays adopting, and abortion is nothing
more than an enormously-valuable REMEDY for an unwanted medical
condition. Obviously, when brains were being distributed, they
probably were down to their last two neurons when they got to you.

Both of these practices were never voted on, but were
legislated from the bench by liberal activist judges.

"Liberal activist judges." Boy, have YOU ever been brainwashed
by the RRR cult like a good little witless cultist. You've got their
lame and lying jargon down pat, and thus make an instant total fool of
yourself when you post. AND, of course, AS such a cultist, you don't
have a CLUE how the Constitution is set up. So for the sake of the
NON-programmed-cultists out there, I'll review that for a moment. ---

(1) The Constitution is the SUPREME law of the land. It
supercedes ALL other laws, including all statutory law,
all judicial law, and all state constitutions.

(2) The U.S. Constitution prescribes a strict set of checks and
balances. This includes the EMPOWERMENT of the U.S.
Supreme Court to create **Judicial Law** in its *interpreta-
tions* of existing provisions of the U.S. Constitution when
testing new laws against its guarantees. JUDICIAL Law is
the **second**-most supreme law of the land... superceding
ALL statutory law and state constitutions. It CANNOT be
changed except by AMENDING the U.S. Constitution. A
process that almost always fails, and when it succeeds, it
has ALWAYS *favored* or *extended* individual liberties.
The **only** exception was Prohibition, and that was
REPEALED 20 years later by another Constitutional
Amendment. The only other ways that Judicial law can
be modified are (1) for the law that was tested, or one
similar to it, to be presented again with changed wording,
which might have removed the verbiage which had been
deemed objectionable/unconstitutional, or (2) for the
Court to make a later ruling that modifies or changes the
earlier one. This latter reason is why it is critically
important for the Court to ALWAYS have a socially-liberal
majority. This Court is the best and *ultimate* DEFENDER
of all our personal liberties. A socially-*conservative*
Court could put America in very real danger of becoming
tyrannical. Especially when the situation that prevails
today pertains: A Congress that also is far too socially-
conservative. That's because conservatism is no longer
the respectable philosophy that it was, 4 and more dec-
ades ago. Today, its slant is toward the bigotry and
disregard for human rights that comprises the philosophy
of the RRR cult... the "Religious" Radical Right. The RRR
is to personal liberties as a few drops of arsenic are to a
glass of drinking water.

(3) That which the RRR cultists love to call "activist
judges" are judges which do what they ALWAYS have
been empowered to do, and what they always have done.
They create Judicial Law via their interpretations of the
Constitution when testing new legislation against the
Constitution's guarantees. (Interestingly, judges are
"activist" only when they do something that the RRR
cult **disagrees** with. But if the judges' ruling FAVORS
the RRR cult's agenda against individual liberties, *then*
those judges are not *condemned* by them for being
"activists." They are instead PRAISED by the cult,
instead, and are deemed "constructionists."

(READERS: Re-read this, if it's not yet clear to you.
It reveals some of the rotten CORE of the hypocrisy
that pervades the bigotry of the RRR cult.)

MOST of the lemmings of the RRR cult haven't sufficient
intelligence to grasp the points made above, even though they
would be crystal clear to anyone of AVERAGE or above intelli-
gence. And those cultists who DO have a high enough IQ are
too programmed to QUESTION the hateful cult in which they've
become ensnared, and have lost the capability to think for them-
selves. So the above is posted for the fence-sitters, and for
other egalitarians to feel free to copy and paste, when defending
liberties.

These issues would have never been passed into law.
The American people never supported this crap!

LOL!!!! You remind me of the segregationists, who had to be
dragged kicking and screaming out of their Dark Ages regime by a
sensible Congress. And the general population, almost a decade later,
which -- PRIOR to 1973 -- generally opposed safe & legal abortion.
But shortly AFTER the U.S. Supreme Court emancipated all American
women with its Roe vs. Wade ruling, opinions turned around quickly,
and very soon, Americans were PRO-Choice by a 2-1 ratio. And it's
been that way ever since.

The only CRAP that still prevails is such mindless and loathsome
bigotry as you display. That TOO shall pass. And IS passing... very
quickly. Extinction for those agendas is right around the corner,
JUST as it was for segregation in 1965, and laws against interracial
marriage in 1967. Then it's GOOD RIDDANCE to anti-gay-rights
mindlessness, and to Anti-Choice. In a few years, people will look
back at those in wonderment, and wonder how anyone could ever
have been that STUPID. **Just** as we look back today at the
segregationists.

These lefties...

THANKS for this continuous demonstration of your ignorance. By
doing that, you make a contribution to the *hastening* of the demise
of the fetid agendas you subscribe to.

...use "living document' arguments to create law out of whole
cloth.

My, you really ARE the programmed little lemming, aren't you?
You have the RRR cult's lying and propagandistic jargon down,
right to the letter. (Fortunately, though, most people recognize that
when they see it, and then laugh when people like you are dumb
enough to employ it.)

The whole "living document" argument is the biggest bunch
of BS I've heard and is used to defend these leftist liberal judicial
non elected legislators who are trying to (and have) change our
laws. Most of the time they are overturned (9th Circuit), but this
is an incremental destruction of America we are in the midst of.

ROTFL!!!! You're funnier than hell! The Constitution is VERY
MUCH a living document, and was purposely written to be,
checks-and-balances and all, by founders who were wise enough
to realize that it had to adapt to a changing society. It is BECAUSE
it is a living document that it has *survived* for more than two
centuries. Had it been rigid and inflexible, it would have shattered
years ago, and THEN gosh only knows what kind of government
we'd have ended up with!

America is in a state of constant, steady, and inexorable
improvement. Quite the OPPOSITE of the "destruction" you lie
about. Obviously you can't remember what things USED to be like,
when America REALLY had problems. World wars against REAL
and *dangerous* tyrannies. The Great Depression. Union strife.
the Mafia and other mobs, and the internal terror they spread.
Segregation. Anti-Semitism. Heck, by comparison to THOSE
days, America is a paradise today!

Your reference to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals probably
refers to its ruling on the "under God" portion of the Pledge of
Allegiance. That has NOT been overturned. It's on hold at this
point. At any time, the U.S. Supreme Court could take it up, and
SUSTAIN that ruling -- striking that verbiage from the Pledge with
finality, nationwide. And it SHOULD. This is a **multi-cultural**
nation, and NO religions should have the ENDORSEMENT of
the government. For the same reason, "In God we Trust" should
not be on our money. Now -- is that "Anti-God" or "Anti-Christian?"
The RRR cultists would whine that it is. But it's not. It is simply
fair and honest NEUTRALITY on the part of the state. The state
has NEVER sought to influence religious practices or displays
on PRIVATE property, and *any* person can pray whenever he
wants. And if he does so as the BIBLE directs him to, he will
do so in *seclusion.* That's **Biblical**!

Clarence on the other hand, just interprets the law, he doesn't
try to change our government system single handedly like some
autocratic left wing ruler who knows what's best for us.

Wrong. He interprets the Constitution, yes. JUST as the
other justices do. Fortunately, on social issues, he's usually in
the minority. But he is every bit as active in the pursuit of that
job as the others are. He simply and unfortunately doesn't
respect individual liberties as they do, so HIS interpretation
simply IGNORES the parts of the Constitution which would
SUPPORT those liberties. NOT a good quality for a person
to have, when in a position of being able to deprive people of
reasonable freedoms!

That's why he's called a strick constructionist.

(READERS -- I just *knew* he'd get on that "constructionist"
kick before he was done. A key propaganda word of the RRR
cult. But if you didn't know before what that REALLY means,
you do *now*!)

He just want to preserve and conserve our constitution,
not turn it into what he would like it to mean.

Wrong. A "constructionist" judge (to use YOUR jargon) is a
*cafeteria* judge, who selectively AVOIDS portions of the Consti-
tution which could be used to defend whatever liberty he is
opposed to. Whereas judges who do their job WELL (the
ones YOU call "activists") look at the ENTIRE Constitution, to
see if it can be interpreted in FAVOR of conferring or granting
liberty. Meanwhile, NO changes are made in that process to the
Constitution itself. ONLY Amendments can do that.

If not changing the constitution means theocracy than
the USA was always a Theocracy.

See above. All of that has been covered. The USA is not a
theocracy, never has been, and as long as freedom-loving and
-respecting judges constitute the majority on the U.S. Supreme
Court, it almost surely NEVER will be.

You want to throw around words like thoecracy.

That clearly is what the RRR cult would LOVE to establish.

The think the left has a religion. It's called anti-Christainity,

LOL!!! Wrong. And I just covered *that*, too.

...and they do sacrifice children. The theocracy they want
to impose is one where Christians are forced into the closet
while homosexuality is promoted and saturates are [sic!] media.

"Sacrifice children?" If you weren't a complete nitwit in here
before, you just reached that level.

It might interest you (actually, probably not, brainwashed
lemming that you obviously are... but this could help any fence-
sitters and lurkers who are reading this) to know that -- per a
recent Gallup Poll, 83% of Amercans are Christians, in this
multi-cultural land of ours. OF those Christians around 98-99%
are very NORMAL, sensible, tolerant and fair-minded people
who NEVER attempt in any way to actively interfere with *any*
liberties. Randall Terry, the loony felon who once led the
mis-named "Operation Rescue," once WHINED on his former
radio show that "fewer than 1 in 100 Christians" were in ANY
way actively Anti-Choice with respect to abortion. In reality,
then, only 2 million or so people are active-to-ANY-degree
RRR cultists who have such disregard for our liberties. They
are PSEUDO-Christians who cloak themselves in the mantle
of whatever respectability Christianity has left (after the RRR
has so besmirched it's image with its high-profile hateful antics),
and DELUDED actual Christians who've been conned into
falling for its false dogmas.

So Christians aren't being "forced into closets" or anything
else. They are on an EQUAL par with all the other religions in
this egalitarian land.

The only ones attempting to FORCE repression on people
are of YOUR ilk... in line one of the RRR cult's phoniest and
most UN-Biblical dogmas: the notion that *anyone* is Biblically
authorized and/or appointed to be ENFORCERS of the Bible's
precepts against society in general. God appointed NO Gestapo.

And homosexuality isn't being "promoted" any more than
blacks were, during the Civil Rights era. They are making NEWS
right now, just as the blacks did back then. And AFTER equal
rights have been guaranteed to them, they won't be in the news
any more than the black portion of our population is.

This of course while making as many abortions and gay
adoptions as possible.

ROTFL!!!!! That's like saying that people are making the setting
of as many broken arms as possible available. Or making as many
aspirin tablets as possible available. Since abortion is only a
REMEDY, and only the people who WANT to **access** it will seek
it. **Just** as sensible people will always ensure that no roadblocks
are established to accessing aspirin, or the treatment of broken arms,
they ALSO will ensure that no roadblocks are established that bar
easy access to the remedy of abortion. (And I've already pointed out
your stupidity with respect to your inane whines about gays being able
to adopt.)

It's as if they sat down and said, "What does Christianity teach;
let's form a religion that is the opposite...

ANOTHER blatant LIE that stems from the distortions and
disinformation that is constantly spewed out by the RRR cult. The
vast majority of Christians want NOTHING to do with such stupidity
and hatefulness, and **recognize** that Jesus' PRIME directive to
them was that they show love and compassion to their neighbors.
The RRR cult, however, mindlessly pursues agendas that would
accomplish NOTHING of value, and would, if they could succeed
(which they never will), impose immense hardship and misery upon
millions of people.

<redundant lying tripe snipped>

I don't know what it is about you lefties,...

LOL!!!! "Lefties." One of the words that RRR cultists use in a
lame and transparent (and totally unsuccessful) attempt to denigrate
SENSIBLE, tolerant, and FAIR-minded egalitarians who respect and
defend individual liberties, and thus enable America to CONTINUE
to be a free country. ...

... but you sure seem to like to sacrifice children...

(READERS: Are *all* of the RRR cultists such obvious nitwits?
No -- but MOST of them are. He's an excellent *example* of the
social arsenic that threatens to poison our freedoms and rights.)

...at the alter of liberalism [LOL!!!!] or rather anti-christainisty.

More blatant lies. I remind you that 83% of Americans docu-
mentably are Christians. And 2/3 of Americans are Pro-Choice.
Do the math. The **majority** of Christians are Pro-Choice, and
therefore what YOU choose to refer to as "liberals." CLUE: We
are NOT "Anti-OURSELVES."

...you disregard our national security for political gamesmanship.

Where did THAT come from? You really are a **desperate** one,
aren't you? I guess you figure that if ONE line of hate-propaganda
doesn't work for you, you'll throw in another one? (Clue: You just
make MORE of a laughingstock of yourself, that way.)

You liberals [LOL!!!] are going to bring a curse on America if you
haven't already.

America DOES still have a curse on it, but we are quickly
REMEDYING that. The curse that began with Jerry Falwell's
so-called "Moral Majority" in the 1970s (which never was
remotely *either* one), which became today's RRR cult, whose
heinous and loathsome anti-human-rights agendas are now being
properly flushed from the American system.

The majority of Americans don't support these policies, ...

Wrong. See above.

...and much of the world thinks we are evil because of them.

Yeah. The Islamic nations. Which are even MORE repressive than
our American version of the Taliban -- the RRR cultists. Try asking
the *Europeans* what **they** think of the stultified and Dark Ages
philosophy that losers like YOU promote.

I hope this doesn't get us nuked. If God was protecting America
he might not anymore.

Oh, He probably will, after jerks like you stop making a MOCKERY
of His compassion.

What else is new! Another screeching self-righteous, hate-filled
rant by Craig.

All that is missing is the storm trooper boots, the club, and the
symbol.

Craig Chilton <

"Mike" (who, as a supporter of shameful bigotry,
hasn't the guts to put his full name to his posts) wrote:

Craig Chilton <

Bruce <pam.bruce@verizon.net> wrote:

And why do you assume that an appointee made by
the current administration would be any more conservative
than any made by Republican administrations in the past
25 years?

Two words: Clarence Thomas. If the majority of justices
were like him, America would become a theocracy!

It's too bad they weren't all like Clarence Thomas. If more
were like Clarence Thomas we wouldn't have to worry about
gay adoptions and abortions.

Another hate-filled and bone-ignorant MORON heard from.

There is NOTHING wrong with gays adopting, and abortion is nothing
more than an enormously-valuable REMEDY for an unwanted medical
condition. Obviously, when brains were being distributed, they
probably were down to their last two neurons when they got to you.

Both of these practices were never voted on, but were
legislated from the bench by liberal activist judges.

"Liberal activist judges." Boy, have YOU ever been brainwashed
by the RRR cult like a good little witless cultist. You've got their
lame and lying jargon down pat, and thus make an instant total fool of
yourself when you post. AND, of course, AS such a cultist, you don't
have a CLUE how the Constitution is set up. So for the sake of the
NON-programmed-cultists out there, I'll review that for a moment. ---

(1) The Constitution is the SUPREME law of the land. It
supercedes ALL other laws, including all statutory law,
all judicial law, and all state constitutions.

(2) The U.S. Constitution prescribes a strict set of checks and
balances. This includes the EMPOWERMENT of the U.S.
Supreme Court to create **Judicial Law** in its *interpreta-
tions* of existing provisions of the U.S. Constitution when
testing new laws against its guarantees. JUDICIAL Law is
the **second**-most supreme law of the land... superceding
ALL statutory law and state constitutions. It CANNOT be
changed except by AMENDING the U.S. Constitution. A
process that almost always fails, and when it succeeds, it
has ALWAYS *favored* or *extended* individual liberties.
The **only** exception was Prohibition, and that was
REPEALED 20 years later by another Constitutional
Amendment. The only other ways that Judicial law can
be modified are (1) for the law that was tested, or one
similar to it, to be presented again with changed wording,
which might have removed the verbiage which had been
deemed objectionable/unconstitutional, or (2) for the
Court to make a later ruling that modifies or changes the
earlier one. This latter reason is why it is critically
important for the Court to ALWAYS have a socially-liberal
majority. This Court is the best and *ultimate* DEFENDER
of all our personal liberties. A socially-*conservative*
Court could put America in very real danger of becoming
tyrannical. Especially when the situation that prevails
today pertains: A Congress that also is far too socially-
conservative. That's because conservatism is no longer
the respectable philosophy that it was, 4 and more dec-
ades ago. Today, its slant is toward the bigotry and
disregard for human rights that comprises the philosophy
of the RRR cult... the "Religious" Radical Right. The RRR
is to personal liberties as a few drops of arsenic are to a
glass of drinking water.

(3) That which the RRR cultists love to call "activist
judges" are judges which do what they ALWAYS have
been empowered to do, and what they always have done.
They create Judicial Law via their interpretations of the
Constitution when testing new legislation against the
Constitution's guarantees. (Interestingly, judges are
"activist" only when they do something that the RRR
cult **disagrees** with. But if the judges' ruling FAVORS
the RRR cult's agenda against individual liberties, *then*
those judges are not *condemned* by them for being
"activists." They are instead PRAISED by the cult,
instead, and are deemed "constructionists."

(READERS: Re-read this, if it's not yet clear to you.
It reveals some of the rotten CORE of the hypocrisy
that pervades the bigotry of the RRR cult.)

MOST of the lemmings of the RRR cult haven't sufficient
intelligence to grasp the points made above, even though they
would be crystal clear to anyone of AVERAGE or above intelli-
gence. And those cultists who DO have a high enough IQ are
too programmed to QUESTION the hateful cult in which they've
become ensnared, and have lost the capability to think for them-
selves. So the above is posted for the fence-sitters, and for
other egalitarians to feel free to copy and paste, when defending
liberties.

These issues would have never been passed into law.
The American people never supported this crap!

LOL!!!! You remind me of the segregationists, who had to be
dragged kicking and screaming out of their Dark Ages regime by a
sensible Congress. And the general population, almost a decade later,
which -- PRIOR to 1973 -- generally opposed safe & legal abortion.
But shortly AFTER the U.S. Supreme Court emancipated all American
women with its Roe vs. Wade ruling, opinions turned around quickly,
and very soon, Americans were PRO-Choice by a 2-1 ratio. And it's
been that way ever since.

The only CRAP that still prevails is such mindless and loathsome
bigotry as you display. That TOO shall pass. And IS passing... very
quickly. Extinction for those agendas is right around the corner,
JUST as it was for segregation in 1965, and laws against interracial
marriage in 1967. Then it's GOOD RIDDANCE to anti-gay-rights
mindlessness, and to Anti-Choice. In a few years, people will look
back at those in wonderment, and wonder how anyone could ever
have been that STUPID. **Just** as we look back today at the
segregationists.

These lefties...

THANKS for this continuous demonstration of your ignorance. By
doing that, you make a contribution to the *hastening* of the demise
of the fetid agendas you subscribe to.

...use "living document' arguments to create law out of whole
cloth.

My, you really ARE the programmed little lemming, aren't you?
You have the RRR cult's lying and propagandistic jargon down,
right to the letter. (Fortunately, though, most people recognize that
when they see it, and then laugh when people like you are dumb
enough to employ it.)

The whole "living document" argument is the biggest bunch
of BS I've heard and is used to defend these leftist liberal judicial
non elected legislators who are trying to (and have) change our
laws. Most of the time they are overturned (9th Circuit), but this
is an incremental destruction of America we are in the midst of.

ROTFL!!!! You're funnier than hell! The Constitution is VERY
MUCH a living document, and was purposely written to be,
checks-and-balances and all, by founders who were wise enough
to realize that it had to adapt to a changing society. It is BECAUSE
it is a living document that it has *survived* for more than two
centuries. Had it been rigid and inflexible, it would have shattered
years ago, and THEN gosh only knows what kind of government
we'd have ended up with!

America is in a state of constant, steady, and inexorable
improvement. Quite the OPPOSITE of the "destruction" you lie
about. Obviously you can't remember what things USED to be like,
when America REALLY had problems. World wars against REAL
and *dangerous* tyrannies. The Great Depression. Union strife.
the Mafia and other mobs, and the internal terror they spread.
Segregation. Anti-Semitism. Heck, by comparison to THOSE
days, America is a paradise today!

Your reference to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals probably
refers to its ruling on the "under God" portion of the Pledge of
Allegiance. That has NOT been overturned. It's on hold at this
point. At any time, the U.S. Supreme Court could take it up, and
SUSTAIN that ruling -- striking that verbiage from the Pledge with
finality, nationwide. And it SHOULD. This is a **multi-cultural**
nation, and NO religions should have the ENDORSEMENT of
the government. For the same reason, "In God we Trust" should
not be on our money. Now -- is that "Anti-God" or "Anti-Christian?"
The RRR cultists would whine that it is. But it's not. It is simply
fair and honest NEUTRALITY on the part of the state. The state
has NEVER sought to influence religious practices or displays
on PRIVATE property, and *any* person can pray whenever he
wants. And if he does so as the BIBLE directs him to, he will
do so in *seclusion.* That's **Biblical**!

Clarence on the other hand, just interprets the law, he doesn't
try to change our government system single handedly like some
autocratic left wing ruler who knows what's best for us.

Wrong. He interprets the Constitution, yes. JUST as the
other justices do. Fortunately, on social issues, he's usually in
the minority. But he is every bit as active in the pursuit of that
job as the others are. He simply and unfortunately doesn't
respect individual liberties as they do, so HIS interpretation
simply IGNORES the parts of the Constitution which would
SUPPORT those liberties. NOT a good quality for a person
to have, when in a position of being able to deprive people of
reasonable freedoms!

That's why he's called a strick constructionist.

(READERS -- I just *knew* he'd get on that "constructionist"
kick before he was done. A key propaganda word of the RRR
cult. But if you didn't know before what that REALLY means,
you do *now*!)

He just want to preserve and conserve our constitution,
not turn it into what he would like it to mean.

Wrong. A "constructionist" judge (to use YOUR jargon) is a
*cafeteria* judge, who selectively AVOIDS portions of the Consti-
tution which could be used to defend whatever liberty he is
opposed to. Whereas judges who do their job WELL (the
ones YOU call "activists") look at the ENTIRE Constitution, to
see if it can be interpreted in FAVOR of conferring or granting
liberty. Meanwhile, NO changes are made in that process to the
Constitution itself. ONLY Amendments can do that.

If not changing the constitution means theocracy than
the USA was always a Theocracy.

See above. All of that has been covered. The USA is not a
theocracy, never has been, and as long as freedom-loving and
-respecting judges constitute the majority on the U.S. Supreme
Court, it almost surely NEVER will be.

You want to throw around words like thoecracy.

That clearly is what the RRR cult would LOVE to establish.

The think the left has a religion. It's called anti-Christainity,

LOL!!! Wrong. And I just covered *that*, too.

...and they do sacrifice children. The theocracy they want
to impose is one where Christians are forced into the closet
while homosexuality is promoted and saturates are [sic!] media.

"Sacrifice children?" If you weren't a complete nitwit in here
before, you just reached that level.

It might interest you (actually, probably not, brainwashed
lemming that you obviously are.