| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
08 May 2007 06:46:38 AM |
| Object: |
USSC decides morality now? |
From a post at the IIDB
Majestyk
Quote:
Originally Posted by inmeitrust
I really don't get all the reactions over abortion. It really is a
small consideration in my politics. I agree with a person's right to
an abortion in the first trimester, or later if life threatening
complications arise. But seriously, if you haven't made up your mind
in the first 3 months.... And the right making it a litmus test is
just archaic. And not making a minor inform the parents of a medical
procedure is just wrong. Minors can't have their teeth cleaned without
consent. Keep the government out of personal affairs.
[end quote]
I'd suggest reading both opinions. Consider Justice Ginsburg's
reference to the Court's inclusion of "moral concerns" in this
decision. (pg 63). The Court is the arbiter of matters on
constitutional law, not morality.
**************************************************
Has this now become a theocratic U S Supreme Court?
_________________
_________________
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Nos. 05–380 and 05–1382
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL,
v.
LEROY CARHART ET AL.
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL,
v.
PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF
AMERICA, INC., ET AL.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-380.pdf
[excerpt]
Ultimately, the Court admits that “moral concerns” are
at work, concerns that could yield prohibitions on any
abortion. See ante, at 28 (“Congress could . . . conclude
that the type of abortion proscribed by the Act requires
specific regulation because it implicates additional ethical
and moral concerns that justify a special prohibition.”).
Notably, the concerns expressed are untethered to any
ground genuinely serving the Government’s interest in
preserving life. By allowing such concerns to carry the
day and case, overriding fundamental rights, the Court
dishonors our precedent. See, e.g., Casey, 505 U. S., at 850
(“Some of us as individuals find abortion offensive to our
most basic principles of morality, but that cannot control
our decision. Our obligation is to define the liberty of all,
not to mandate our own moral code.”); Lawrence v. Texas,
539 U. S. 558, 571 (2003) (Though “[f]or many persons
[objections to homosexual conduct] are not trivial concerns
but profound and deep convictions accepted as ethical and
moral principles,” the power of the State may not be used
“to enforce these views on the whole society through operation
of the criminal law.” (citing Casey, 505 U. S., at
850)).
[end excerpt]
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde Hi ho " |
|
| Title: Re: USSC decides morality now? |
08 May 2007 12:49:12 PM |
|
|
wrote:
From a post at the IIDB
Majestyk
Quote:
Originally Posted by inmeitrust
I really don't get all the reactions over abortion. It really is a
small consideration in my politics. I agree with a person's right to
an abortion in the first trimester, or later if life threatening
complications arise. But seriously, if you haven't made up your mind
in the first 3 months.... And the right making it a litmus test is
just archaic. And not making a minor inform the parents of a medical
procedure is just wrong. Minors can't have their teeth cleaned without
consent. Keep the government out of personal affairs.
[end quote]
I'd suggest reading both opinions. Consider Justice Ginsburg's
reference to the Court's inclusion of "moral concerns" in this
decision. (pg 63). The Court is the arbiter of matters on
constitutional law, not morality.
**************************************************
Has this now become a theocratic U S Supreme Court?
The Court injected itself into this debate back at Roe v Wade. If it
were just to decide things based on the constitution, it would have to
let the state laws stand regulating abortion. This is a dangerous road
of overstepping its role that the Court has taken but don't blame that
on its current members.
--
"There are some gals who don't like to be pushed and grabbed and lassoed
and drug into buses in the middle of the night."
"How else was I gonna get her on the bus? Well, I'm askin' ya.",
George Axelrod, "Bus Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lamont Cranston" |
|
| Title: Re: USSC decides morality now? |
08 May 2007 03:01:08 PM |
|
|
"Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4640B818.63C87C97@yahoo.co.uk...
buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
From a post at the IIDB
Majestyk
Quote:
Originally Posted by inmeitrust
I really don't get all the reactions over abortion. It really is a
small consideration in my politics. I agree with a person's right to
an abortion in the first trimester, or later if life threatening
complications arise. But seriously, if you haven't made up your mind
in the first 3 months.... And the right making it a litmus test is
just archaic. And not making a minor inform the parents of a medical
procedure is just wrong. Minors can't have their teeth cleaned without
consent. Keep the government out of personal affairs.
[end quote]
I'd suggest reading both opinions. Consider Justice Ginsburg's
reference to the Court's inclusion of "moral concerns" in this
decision. (pg 63). The Court is the arbiter of matters on
constitutional law, not morality.
**************************************************
Has this now become a theocratic U S Supreme Court?
The Court injected itself into this debate back at Roe v Wade. If it
Yes, because it is a privacy issue.
were just to decide things based on the constitution, it would have to
let the state laws stand regulating abortion. This is a dangerous road
of overstepping its role that the Court has taken but don't blame that
on its current members.
The majority of the current members don't believe in privacy (except their
own).
--
"There are some gals who don't like to be pushed and grabbed and lassoed
and drug into buses in the middle of the night."
"How else was I gonna get her on the bus? Well, I'm askin' ya.",
George Axelrod, "Bus Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde Hi ho " |
|
| Title: Re: USSC decides morality now? |
08 May 2007 05:55:01 PM |
|
|
Lamont Cranston wrote:
"Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4640B818.63C87C97@yahoo.co.uk...
buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
From a post at the IIDB
Majestyk
Quote:
Originally Posted by inmeitrust
I really don't get all the reactions over abortion. It really is a
small consideration in my politics. I agree with a person's right to
an abortion in the first trimester, or later if life threatening
complications arise. But seriously, if you haven't made up your mind
in the first 3 months.... And the right making it a litmus test is
just archaic. And not making a minor inform the parents of a medical
procedure is just wrong. Minors can't have their teeth cleaned without
consent. Keep the government out of personal affairs.
[end quote]
I'd suggest reading both opinions. Consider Justice Ginsburg's
reference to the Court's inclusion of "moral concerns" in this
decision. (pg 63). The Court is the arbiter of matters on
constitutional law, not morality.
**************************************************
Has this now become a theocratic U S Supreme Court?
The Court injected itself into this debate back at Roe v Wade. If it
Yes, because it is a privacy issue.
No more than everything is.
were just to decide things based on the constitution, it would have to
let the state laws stand regulating abortion. This is a dangerous road
of overstepping its role that the Court has taken but don't blame that
on its current members.
The majority of the current members don't believe in privacy (except their
own).
What is it got to do with "privacy" that having your toe nail infection
worked on doesn't? Do we need the Court to speak on toenail infections
too?
--
"There are some gals who don't like to be pushed and grabbed and lassoed
and drug into buses in the middle of the night."
"How else was I gonna get her on the bus? Well, I'm askin' ya.",
George Axelrod, "Bus Stop"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Hartung" |
|
| Title: Re: USSC decides morality now? |
08 May 2007 03:29:41 PM |
|
|
Lamont Cranston wrote:
"Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4640B818.63C87C97@yahoo.co.uk...
buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
From a post at the IIDB
Majestyk
Quote:
Originally Posted by inmeitrust
I really don't get all the reactions over abortion. It really is a
small consideration in my politics. I agree with a person's right to
an abortion in the first trimester, or later if life threatening
complications arise. But seriously, if you haven't made up your mind
in the first 3 months.... And the right making it a litmus test is
just archaic. And not making a minor inform the parents of a medical
procedure is just wrong. Minors can't have their teeth cleaned without
consent. Keep the government out of personal affairs.
[end quote]
I'd suggest reading both opinions. Consider Justice Ginsburg's
reference to the Court's inclusion of "moral concerns" in this
decision. (pg 63). The Court is the arbiter of matters on
constitutional law, not morality.
**************************************************
Has this now become a theocratic U S Supreme Court?
The Court injected itself into this debate back at Roe v Wade. If it
Yes, because it is a privacy issue.
no, it is a life issue, and one which belongs to the individual States, not to
the Federal Government.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: USSC decides morality now? |
09 May 2007 09:55:33 PM |
|
|
David Hartung writes:
David> Lamont Cranston wrote:
"Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
message news:4640B818.63C87C97@yahoo.co.uk...
buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
From a post at the IIDB
Majestyk
Quote>
Originally Posted by inmeitrust
I really don't get all the reactions over abortion. It really is a
small consideration in my politics. I agree with a person's right to
an abortion in the first trimester, or later if life threatening
complications arise. But seriously, if you haven't made up your mind
in the first 3 months.... And the right making it a litmus test is
just archaic. And not making a minor inform the parents of a medical
procedure is just wrong. Minors can't have their teeth cleaned without
consent. Keep the government out of personal affairs.
[end quote]
I'd suggest reading both opinions. Consider Justice Ginsburg's
reference to the Court's inclusion of "moral concerns" in this
decision. (pg 63). The Court is the arbiter of matters on
constitutional law, not morality.
**************************************************
Has this now become a theocratic U S Supreme Court?
The Court injected itself into this debate back at Roe v Wade. If it
Yes, because it is a privacy issue.
David> no, it is a life issue, and one which belongs to the individual
David> States, not to the Federal Government.
It is an ownership issue. Private property and all that.
--
Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh...)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde Hi ho " |
|
| Title: Re: USSC decides morality now? |
10 May 2007 12:26:00 AM |
|
|
wrote:
David Hartung writes:
David> Lamont Cranston wrote:
"Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
message news:4640B818.63C87C97@yahoo.co.uk...
buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
From a post at the IIDB
Majestyk
Quote>
Originally Posted by inmeitrust
I really don't get all the reactions over abortion. It really is a
small consideration in my politics. I agree with a person's right to
an abortion in the first trimester, or later if life threatening
complications arise. But seriously, if you haven't made up your mind
in the first 3 months.... And the right making it a litmus test is
just archaic. And not making a minor inform the parents of a medical
procedure is just wrong. Minors can't have their teeth cleaned without
consent. Keep the government out of personal affairs.
[end quote]
I'd suggest reading both opinions. Consider Justice Ginsburg's
reference to the Court's inclusion of "moral concerns" in this
decision. (pg 63). The Court is the arbiter of matters on
constitutional law, not morality.
**************************************************
Has this now become a theocratic U S Supreme Court?
The Court injected itself into this debate back at Roe v Wade. If it
Yes, because it is a privacy issue.
David> no, it is a life issue, and one which belongs to the individual
David> States, not to the Federal Government.
It is an ownership issue. Private property and all that.
Actually the creation of human life is a unique thing that should be
looked at more as a triage situation than one of ownership. The argument
for ownership, it's within the woman's body therefore it's hers, would
seem to mean that location defines whether or not you are a human with
rights. So, for example, if a doctor takes a foetus out of the woman for
a period to operate on it, for that period it is a human with all human
rights, but if the doctor puts it back in, it's suddenly not a human and
doesn't have rights anymore. That seems absurd and seems to lead to the
concept of "triage". Let me add though that the federal Courts should
*not* be defining this for the society. This should be legislated or
returned to the states to decide for themselves.
.
|
|
|
| User: "torresdD" |
|
| Title: Israeli/Palestinian Conflict - DOHA Debate |
10 May 2007 12:35:38 AM |
|
|
http://clients.mediaondemand.net/thedohadebates/index.aspx?sessionid=23&bandwidth=lo
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "LarsensAttack BayonetVariation.net" |
|
| Title: Re: USSC decides morality now? |
08 May 2007 06:22:15 PM |
|
|
David Hartung wrote:
Lamont Cranston wrote:
"Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
message news:4640B818.63C87C97@yahoo.co.uk...
buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
From a post at the IIDB
Majestyk
Quote:
Originally Posted by inmeitrust
I really don't get all the reactions over abortion. It really is a
small consideration in my politics. I agree with a person's right to
an abortion in the first trimester, or later if life threatening
complications arise. But seriously, if you haven't made up your mind
in the first 3 months.... And the right making it a litmus test is
just archaic. And not making a minor inform the parents of a medical
procedure is just wrong. Minors can't have their teeth cleaned without
consent. Keep the government out of personal affairs.
[end quote]
I'd suggest reading both opinions. Consider Justice Ginsburg's
reference to the Court's inclusion of "moral concerns" in this
decision. (pg 63). The Court is the arbiter of matters on
constitutional law, not morality.
**************************************************
Has this now become a theocratic U S Supreme Court?
The Court injected itself into this debate back at Roe v Wade. If it
Yes, because it is a privacy issue.
no, it is a life issue, and one which belongs to the individual States,
not to the Federal Government.
That's the OLD pre-Bush Conservative position, David.
They abandoned that "individual state", less federal
interference when the Neocons came to power.
Maybe you didn't notice.
--
B3
==
Governments should fear their people, not vice versa.
Why are the Dems pandering to the GOP and Bush?
Every re-authorization of funds approves the war all over again.
Anyone who could lie about Tillman and Lynch could lie about anything.
What does it take to impeach? Torturing civilians? Lying to voters?
Overturning the constitution? Warrantless spying on citizens?
Overturning the Geneva Convention? Fraudulent war?
When will the public take their government back?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Holman" |
|
| Title: Re: USSC decides morality now? |
08 May 2007 08:31:48 PM |
|
|
LarsensAttack <BayonetVariation.net> wrote in
news:W5ydnRxh7LvbldzbnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@comcast.com:
David Hartung wrote:
Lamont Cranston wrote:
"Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
message news:4640B818.63C87C97@yahoo.co.uk...
buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
From a post at the IIDB
Majestyk
Quote:
Originally Posted by inmeitrust
I really don't get all the reactions over abortion. It really is a
small consideration in my politics. I agree with a person's right to
an abortion in the first trimester, or later if life threatening
complications arise. But seriously, if you haven't made up your mind
in the first 3 months.... And the right making it a litmus test is
just archaic. And not making a minor inform the parents of a medical
procedure is just wrong. Minors can't have their teeth cleaned
without
consent. Keep the government out of personal affairs.
[end quote]
I'd suggest reading both opinions. Consider Justice Ginsburg's
reference to the Court's inclusion of "moral concerns" in this
decision. (pg 63). The Court is the arbiter of matters on
constitutional law, not morality.
**************************************************
Has this now become a theocratic U S Supreme Court?
The Court injected itself into this debate back at Roe v Wade. If it
Yes, because it is a privacy issue.
no, it is a life issue, and one which belongs to the individual States,
not to the Federal Government.
That's the OLD pre-Bush Conservative position, David.
They abandoned that "individual state", less federal
interference when the Neocons came to power.
Maybe you didn't notice.
Ask anyone in Oregon what they think of Bush's
committment to "states rights"...............
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9611497/
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-01-17-scotus-suicide_x.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "LarsensAttack BayonetVariation.net" |
|
| Title: Re: USSC decides morality now? |
08 May 2007 08:55:11 PM |
|
|
Mitchell Holman wrote:
LarsensAttack <BayonetVariation.net> wrote in
news:W5ydnRxh7LvbldzbnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@comcast.com:
David Hartung wrote:
Lamont Cranston wrote:
"Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
message news:4640B818.63C87C97@yahoo.co.uk...
buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
From a post at the IIDB
Majestyk
Quote:
Originally Posted by inmeitrust
I really don't get all the reactions over abortion. It really is a
small consideration in my politics. I agree with a person's right to
an abortion in the first trimester, or later if life threatening
complications arise. But seriously, if you haven't made up your mind
in the first 3 months.... And the right making it a litmus test is
just archaic. And not making a minor inform the parents of a medical
procedure is just wrong. Minors can't have their teeth cleaned
without
consent. Keep the government out of personal affairs.
[end quote]
I'd suggest reading both opinions. Consider Justice Ginsburg's
reference to the Court's inclusion of "moral concerns" in this
decision. (pg 63). The Court is the arbiter of matters on
constitutional law, not morality.
**************************************************
Has this now become a theocratic U S Supreme Court?
The Court injected itself into this debate back at Roe v Wade. If it
Yes, because it is a privacy issue.
no, it is a life issue, and one which belongs to the individual States,
not to the Federal Government.
That's the OLD pre-Bush Conservative position, David.
They abandoned that "individual state", less federal
interference when the Neocons came to power.
Maybe you didn't notice.
Ask anyone in Oregon what they think of Bush's
committment to "states rights"...............
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9611497/
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-01-17-scotus-suicide_x.htm
Plainly many of the Neocons had a hidden agenda when they
came to power. Thse examples are the least of it.
--
B3
==
Governments should fear their people, not vice versa.
Why are the Dems pandering to the GOP and Bush?
Every re-authorization of funds approves the war all over again.
Anyone who could lie about Tillman and Lynch could lie about anything.
What does it take to impeach? Torturing civilians? Lying to voters?
Overturning the constitution? Warrantless spying on citizens?
Overturning the Geneva Convention? Fraudulent war?
When will the public take their government back?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Hartung" |
|
| Title: Re: USSC decides morality now? |
08 May 2007 07:56:30 PM |
|
|
LarsensAttack wrote:
David Hartung wrote:
Lamont Cranston wrote:
"Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
message news:4640B818.63C87C97@yahoo.co.uk...
buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
From a post at the IIDB
Majestyk
Quote:
Originally Posted by inmeitrust
I really don't get all the reactions over abortion. It really is a
small consideration in my politics. I agree with a person's right to
an abortion in the first trimester, or later if life threatening
complications arise. But seriously, if you haven't made up your mind
in the first 3 months.... And the right making it a litmus test is
just archaic. And not making a minor inform the parents of a medical
procedure is just wrong. Minors can't have their teeth cleaned
without
consent. Keep the government out of personal affairs.
[end quote]
I'd suggest reading both opinions. Consider Justice Ginsburg's
reference to the Court's inclusion of "moral concerns" in this
decision. (pg 63). The Court is the arbiter of matters on
constitutional law, not morality.
**************************************************
Has this now become a theocratic U S Supreme Court?
The Court injected itself into this debate back at Roe v Wade. If it
Yes, because it is a privacy issue.
no, it is a life issue, and one which belongs to the individual
States, not to the Federal Government.
That's the OLD pre-Bush Conservative position, David.
They abandoned that "individual state", less federal
interference when the Neocons came to power.
Maybe you didn't notice.
You support my contention that Bush is not a conservative, and never has been.
By the way, this is a position I have taken since the current president Bush's
father became Vice President.
.
|
|
|
| User: "LarsensAttack BayonetVariation.net" |
|
| Title: Re: USSC decides morality now? |
08 May 2007 08:52:20 PM |
|
|
David Hartung wrote:
LarsensAttack wrote:
David Hartung wrote:
Lamont Cranston wrote:
"Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
message news:4640B818.63C87C97@yahoo.co.uk...
buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
From a post at the IIDB
Majestyk
Quote:
Originally Posted by inmeitrust
I really don't get all the reactions over abortion. It really is a
small consideration in my politics. I agree with a person's right to
an abortion in the first trimester, or later if life threatening
complications arise. But seriously, if you haven't made up your mind
in the first 3 months.... And the right making it a litmus test is
just archaic. And not making a minor inform the parents of a medical
procedure is just wrong. Minors can't have their teeth cleaned
without
consent. Keep the government out of personal affairs.
[end quote]
I'd suggest reading both opinions. Consider Justice Ginsburg's
reference to the Court's inclusion of "moral concerns" in this
decision. (pg 63). The Court is the arbiter of matters on
constitutional law, not morality.
**************************************************
Has this now become a theocratic U S Supreme Court?
The Court injected itself into this debate back at Roe v Wade. If it
Yes, because it is a privacy issue.
no, it is a life issue, and one which belongs to the individual
States, not to the Federal Government.
That's the OLD pre-Bush Conservative position, David.
They abandoned that "individual state", less federal
interference when the Neocons came to power.
Maybe you didn't notice.
You support my contention that Bush is not a conservative, and never has
been. By the way, this is a position I have taken since the current
president Bush's father became Vice President.
The Neocons came to power as conservative mimics. Now many are
trying to jump ship and re-invent themselves as Neodems.
Just watch.
--
B3
==
Governments should fear their people, not vice versa.
Why are the Dems pandering to the GOP and Bush?
Every re-authorization of funds approves the war all over again.
Anyone who could lie about Tillman and Lynch could lie about anything.
What does it take to impeach? Torturing civilians? Lying to voters?
Overturning the constitution? Warrantless spying on citizens?
Overturning the Geneva Convention? Fraudulent war?
When will the public take their government back?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "LarsensAttack BayonetVariation.net" |
|
| Title: Re: USSC decides morality now? |
08 May 2007 08:38:13 AM |
|
|
wrote:
From a post at the IIDB
Majestyk
Quote:
Originally Posted by inmeitrust
I really don't get all the reactions over abortion. It really is a
small consideration in my politics. I agree with a person's right to
an abortion in the first trimester, or later if life threatening
complications arise. But seriously, if you haven't made up your mind
in the first 3 months.... And the right making it a litmus test is
just archaic. And not making a minor inform the parents of a medical
procedure is just wrong. Minors can't have their teeth cleaned without
consent. Keep the government out of personal affairs.
[end quote]
I'd suggest reading both opinions. Consider Justice Ginsburg's
reference to the Court's inclusion of "moral concerns" in this
decision. (pg 63). The Court is the arbiter of matters on
constitutional law, not morality.
**************************************************
Has this now become a theocratic U S Supreme Court?
Very simply. You pack the court with a Catholic MAJORITY
even though they are a MINORITY and they get to inflict
their religious views on the rest of us.
_________________
_________________
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Nos. 05–380 and 05–1382
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL,
v.
LEROY CARHART ET AL.
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL,
v.
PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF
AMERICA, INC., ET AL.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-380.pdf
[excerpt]
Ultimately, the Court admits that “moral concerns” are
at work, concerns that could yield prohibitions on any
abortion. See ante, at 28 (“Congress could . . . conclude
that the type of abortion proscribed by the Act requires
specific regulation because it implicates additional ethical
and moral concerns that justify a special prohibition.”).
Notably, the concerns expressed are untethered to any
ground genuinely serving the Government’s interest in
preserving life. By allowing such concerns to carry the
day and case, overriding fundamental rights, the Court
dishonors our precedent. See, e.g., Casey, 505 U. S., at 850
(“Some of us as individuals find abortion offensive to our
most basic principles of morality, but that cannot control
our decision. Our obligation is to define the liberty of all,
not to mandate our own moral code.”); Lawrence v. Texas,
539 U. S. 558, 571 (2003) (Though “[f]or many persons
[objections to homosexual conduct] are not trivial concerns
but profound and deep convictions accepted as ethical and
moral principles,” the power of the State may not be used
“to enforce these views on the whole society through operation
of the criminal law.” (citing Casey, 505 U. S., at
850)).
[end excerpt]
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
--
B3
==
Governments should fear their people, not vice versa.
Why are the Dems pandering to the GOP and Bush?
Every re-authorization of funds approves the war all over again.
Anyone who could lie about Tillman and Lynch could lie about anything.
What does it take to impeach? Torturing civilians? Lying to voters?
Overturning the constitution? Warrantless spying on citizens?
Overturning the Geneva Convention? Fraudulent war?
When will the public take their government back?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Hartung" |
|
| Title: Re: USSC decides morality now? |
08 May 2007 08:55:17 AM |
|
|
LarsensAttack wrote:
buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
From a post at the IIDB
Majestyk
Quote:
Originally Posted by inmeitrust I really don't get all the reactions
over abortion. It really is a
small consideration in my politics. I agree with a person's right to
an abortion in the first trimester, or later if life threatening
complications arise. But seriously, if you haven't made up your mind
in the first 3 months.... And the right making it a litmus test is
just archaic. And not making a minor inform the parents of a medical
procedure is just wrong. Minors can't have their teeth cleaned without
consent. Keep the government out of personal affairs.
[end quote]
I'd suggest reading both opinions. Consider Justice Ginsburg's
reference to the Court's inclusion of "moral concerns" in this
decision. (pg 63). The Court is the arbiter of matters on
constitutional law, not morality.
**************************************************
Has this now become a theocratic U S Supreme Court?
Very simply. You pack the court with a Catholic MAJORITY
even though they are a MINORITY and they get to inflict
their religious views on the rest of us.
This is what you call bigotry.
.
|
|
|
| User: "LarsensAttack BayonetVariation.net" |
|
| Title: Re: USSC decides morality now? |
08 May 2007 02:00:45 PM |
|
|
David Hartung wrote:
LarsensAttack wrote:
buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
From a post at the IIDB
Majestyk
Quote:
Originally Posted by inmeitrust I really don't get all the
reactions over abortion. It really is a
small consideration in my politics. I agree with a person's right to
an abortion in the first trimester, or later if life threatening
complications arise. But seriously, if you haven't made up your mind
in the first 3 months.... And the right making it a litmus test is
just archaic. And not making a minor inform the parents of a medical
procedure is just wrong. Minors can't have their teeth cleaned without
consent. Keep the government out of personal affairs.
[end quote]
I'd suggest reading both opinions. Consider Justice Ginsburg's
reference to the Court's inclusion of "moral concerns" in this
decision. (pg 63). The Court is the arbiter of matters on
constitutional law, not morality.
**************************************************
Has this now become a theocratic U S Supreme Court?
Very simply. You pack the court with a Catholic MAJORITY
even though they are a MINORITY and they get to inflict
their religious views on the rest of us.
This is what you call bigotry.
No, its called playing FAIR. When you have a minority
that dominates one of the most powerful bodies in the
US, its called UNFAIR.
--
B3
==
Governments should fear their people, not vice versa.
Why are the Dems pandering to the GOP and Bush?
Every re-authorization of funds approves the war all over again.
Anyone who could lie about Tillman and Lynch could lie about anything.
What does it take to impeach? Torturing civilians? Lying to voters?
Overturning the constitution? Warrantless spying on citizens?
Overturning the Geneva Convention? Fraudulent war?
When will the public take their government back?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Hartung" |
|
| Title: Re: USSC decides morality now? |
08 May 2007 02:53:06 PM |
|
|
LarsensAttack wrote:
David Hartung wrote:
LarsensAttack wrote:
buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
From a post at the IIDB
Majestyk Quote:
Originally Posted by inmeitrust I really don't get all the
reactions over abortion. It really is a
small consideration in my politics. I agree with a person's right to
an abortion in the first trimester, or later if life threatening
complications arise. But seriously, if you haven't made up your mind
in the first 3 months.... And the right making it a litmus test is
just archaic. And not making a minor inform the parents of a medical
procedure is just wrong. Minors can't have their teeth cleaned without
consent. Keep the government out of personal affairs.
[end quote]
I'd suggest reading both opinions. Consider Justice Ginsburg's
reference to the Court's inclusion of "moral concerns" in this
decision. (pg 63). The Court is the arbiter of matters on
constitutional law, not morality.
**************************************************
Has this now become a theocratic U S Supreme Court?
Very simply. You pack the court with a Catholic MAJORITY
even though they are a MINORITY and they get to inflict
their religious views on the rest of us.
This is what you call bigotry.
No, its called playing FAIR. When you have a minority
that dominates one of the most powerful bodies in the
US, its called UNFAIR.
I see, and when that minority was a group of liberals, you had no problem. This
is called hypocrisy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "LarsensAttack BayonetVariation.net" |
|
| Title: Re: USSC decides morality now? |
08 May 2007 06:19:40 PM |
|
|
David Hartung wrote:
LarsensAttack wrote:
David Hartung wrote:
LarsensAttack wrote:
buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
From a post at the IIDB
Majestyk Quote:
Originally Posted by inmeitrust I really don't get all the
reactions over abortion. It really is a
small consideration in my politics. I agree with a person's right to
an abortion in the first trimester, or later if life threatening
complications arise. But seriously, if you haven't made up your mind
in the first 3 months.... And the right making it a litmus test is
just archaic. And not making a minor inform the parents of a medical
procedure is just wrong. Minors can't have their teeth cleaned
without
consent. Keep the government out of personal affairs.
[end quote]
I'd suggest reading both opinions. Consider Justice Ginsburg's
reference to the Court's inclusion of "moral concerns" in this
decision. (pg 63). The Court is the arbiter of matters on
constitutional law, not morality.
**************************************************
Has this now become a theocratic U S Supreme Court?
Very simply. You pack the court with a Catholic MAJORITY
even though they are a MINORITY and they get to inflict
their religious views on the rest of us.
This is what you call bigotry.
No, its called playing FAIR. When you have a minority
that dominates one of the most powerful bodies in the
US, its called UNFAIR.
I see, and when that minority was a group of liberals, you had no
problem. This is called hypocrisy.
Your words, not mine, nor my thoughts. I have a problem with
ANY minority stealing another minorities lunch and the
influence of the MAJORITY to boot. We are a DEMOCRACY
in which the MAJORITY rules, not some tinpot banana republic.
--
B3
==
Governments should fear their people, not vice versa.
Why are the Dems pandering to the GOP and Bush?
Every re-authorization of funds approves the war all over again.
Anyone who could lie about Tillman and Lynch could lie about anything.
What does it take to impeach? Torturing civilians? Lying to voters?
Overturning the constitution? Warrantless spying on citizens?
Overturning the Geneva Convention? Fraudulent war?
When will the public take their government back?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Hartung" |
|
| Title: Re: USSC decides morality now? |
08 May 2007 07:54:56 PM |
|
|
LarsensAttack wrote:
Your words, not mine, nor my thoughts. I have a problem with
ANY minority stealing another minorities lunch and the
influence of the MAJORITY to boot. We are a DEMOCRACY
in which the MAJORITY rules, not some tinpot banana republic.
Sorry, we are a republic, in which we elect representatives to serve the best
interests of the people. In the case of President Bush, he was properly, and
constitutionally elected. According to our Constitution, he appointed justices
and judges which were then confirmed by the Senate, all in accordance with our
Constitution. These Justices then rule, also in accordance with the
Constitution. How is this wrong?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Holman" |
|
| Title: Re: USSC decides morality now? |
08 May 2007 08:20:43 PM |
|
|
David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
news:RpadnfamPPJ5htzbnZ2dnUVZ_hynnZ2d@comcast.com:
LarsensAttack wrote:
Your words, not mine, nor my thoughts. I have a problem with
ANY minority stealing another minorities lunch and the
influence of the MAJORITY to boot. We are a DEMOCRACY
in which the MAJORITY rules, not some tinpot banana republic.
Sorry, we are a republic, in which we elect representatives to serve the
best interests of the people. In the case of President Bush, he was
properly, and constitutionally elected. According to our Constitution,
he appointed justices and judges which were then confirmed by the
Senate, all in accordance with our Constitution. These Justices then
rule, also in accordance with the Constitution. How is this wrong?
Aren't you forgetting the tide of recess appointments
that Bush uses to bypass the Senate confirmation process
for nominees even the GOP Senate was uncomfortable with?
Mitchell Holman
"Every judicial nominee deserves an up or down vote."
George Bush, 2005 SOTU, just after bypassing the Senate
and installing William Pryor and Charles Pickering to
federal judgeships via the recess appointment system.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Hartung" |
|
| Title: Re: USSC decides morality now? |
08 May 2007 08:30:32 PM |
|
|
Mitchell Holman wrote:
David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
news:RpadnfamPPJ5htzbnZ2dnUVZ_hynnZ2d@comcast.com:
LarsensAttack wrote:
Your words, not mine, nor my thoughts. I have a problem with
ANY minority stealing another minorities lunch and the
influence of the MAJORITY to boot. We are a DEMOCRACY
in which the MAJORITY rules, not some tinpot banana republic.
Sorry, we are a republic, in which we elect representatives to serve the
best interests of the people. In the case of President Bush, he was
properly, and constitutionally elected. According to our Constitution,
he appointed justices and judges which were then confirmed by the
Senate, all in accordance with our Constitution. These Justices then
rule, also in accordance with the Constitution. How is this wrong?
Aren't you forgetting the tide of recess appointments
that Bush uses to bypass the Senate confirmation process
for nominees even the GOP Senate was uncomfortable with?
1. Those whom you are referring to, had a majority support in the Senate.
2. Recess appointments are in accordance with our Constitution.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Holman" |
|
| Title: Re: USSC decides morality now? |
08 May 2007 09:34:22 PM |
|
|
David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
news:tL6dnZujk4WmudzbnZ2dnUVZ_vPinZ2d@comcast.com:
Mitchell Holman wrote:
David Hartung <dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote in
news:RpadnfamPPJ5htzbnZ2dnUVZ_hynnZ2d@comcast.com:
LarsensAttack wrote:
Your words, not mine, nor my thoughts. I have a problem with
ANY minority stealing another minorities lunch and the
influence of the MAJORITY to boot. We are a DEMOCRACY
in which the MAJORITY rules, not some tinpot banana republic.
Sorry, we are a republic, in which we elect representatives to serve
the
best interests of the people. In the case of President Bush, he was
properly, and constitutionally elected. According to our Constitution,
he appointed justices and judges which were then confirmed by the
Senate, all in accordance with our Constitution. These Justices then
rule, also in accordance with the Constitution. How is this wrong?
Aren't you forgetting the tide of recess appointments
that Bush uses to bypass the Senate confirmation process
for nominees even the GOP Senate was uncomfortable with?
1. Those whom you are referring to, had a majority support in the Senate.
Like Bolton, who Bush didn't even bother resubmitting
to the Senate because he was so horrible?
2. Recess appointments are in accordance with our Constitution.
They still belie your claim that Bush's nominees
were all confirmed by the Senate.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "LarsensAttack BayonetVariation.net" |
|
| Title: Re: USSC decides morality now? |
08 May 2007 08:51:11 PM |
|
|
David Hartung wrote:
LarsensAttack wrote:
Your words, not mine, nor my thoughts. I have a problem with
ANY minority stealing another minorities lunch and the
influence of the MAJORITY to boot. We are a DEMOCRACY
in which the MAJORITY rules, not some tinpot banana republic.
Sorry, we are a republic, in which we elect representatives to serve the
best interests of the people. In the case of President Bush, he was
properly, and constitutionally elected. According to our Constitution,
he appointed justices and judges which were then confirmed by the
Senate, all in accordance with our Constitution. These Justices then
rule, also in accordance with the Constitution. How is this wrong?
Its broken and needs fixing. If you didn't notice, we
have just seen major political tampering with the DoJ.
Obviously the same has happened with the USSC. There
should be some sort of litmus test to determine whether
something fishy is going on with the profiles of those
appointed, as it plainly is.
--
B3
==
Governments should fear their people, not vice versa.
Why are the Dems pandering to the GOP and Bush?
Every re-authorization of funds approves the war all over again.
Anyone who could lie about Tillman and Lynch could lie about anything.
What does it take to impeach? Torturing civilians? Lying to voters?
Overturning the constitution? Warrantless spying on citizens?
Overturning the Geneva Convention? Fraudulent war?
When will the public take their government back?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Hartung" |
|
| Title: Re: USSC decides morality now? |
08 May 2007 09:45:39 PM |
|
|
LarsensAttack wrote:
David Hartung wrote:
LarsensAttack wrote:
Your words, not mine, nor my thoughts. I have a problem with
ANY minority stealing another minorities lunch and the
influence of the MAJORITY to boot. We are a DEMOCRACY
in which the MAJORITY rules, not some tinpot banana republic.
Sorry, we are a republic, in which we elect representatives to serve
the best interests of the people. In the case of President Bush, he
was properly, and constitutionally elected. According to our
Constitution, he appointed justices and judges which were then
confirmed by the Senate, all in accordance with our Constitution.
These Justices then rule, also in accordance with the Constitution.
How is this wrong?
Its broken and needs fixing. If you didn't notice, we
have just seen major political tampering with the DoJ.
In what way?
Are you referring to the US Attorneys?
Have you forgotten that they serve at the pleasure of the President?
Obviously the same has happened with the USSC. There
should be some sort of litmus test to determine whether
something fishy is going on with the profiles of those
appointed, as it plainly is.
You have a vivid imagination. The fact that Bush has appointed people who don't
see things your way, is not evidence of political tampering.
.
|
|
|
| User: "LarsensAttack BayonetVariation.net" |
|
| Title: Re: USSC decides morality now? |
09 May 2007 11:34:50 AM |
|
|
David Hartung wrote:
LarsensAttack wrote:
David Hartung wrote:
LarsensAttack wrote:
Your words, not mine, nor my thoughts. I have a problem with
ANY minority stealing another minorities lunch and the
influence of the MAJORITY to boot. We are a DEMOCRACY
in which the MAJORITY rules, not some tinpot banana republic.
Sorry, we are a republic, in which we elect representatives to serve
the best interests of the people. In the case of President Bush, he
was properly, and constitutionally elected. According to our
Constitution, he appointed justices and judges which were then
confirmed by the Senate, all in accordance with our Constitution.
These Justices then rule, also in accordance with the Constitution.
How is this wrong?
Its broken and needs fixing. If you didn't notice, we
have just seen major political tampering with the DoJ.
In what way?
Are you referring to the US Attorneys?
Have you forgotten that they serve at the pleasure of the President?
Obviously the same has happened with the USSC. There
should be some sort of litmus test to determine whether
something fishy is going on with the profiles of those
appointed, as it plainly is.
You have a vivid imagination. The fact that Bush has appointed people
who don't see things your way, is not evidence of political tampering.
It certainly is when they fit a PROFILE that does't match
the profile of the US population! Don't you get it, at all?
The profile of the USSC should match the profile of the
American population and not be heavily leveraged to one
minority. The profile of the USSC shows tampering. It shows
that there was a hidden AGENDA in the appointments.
If it was on the level the ethnic, religious and racial
distribution of the judges would fit the US population
profile. But it's so far off as to be obviously tampered with.
--
B3
==
Governments should fear their people, not vice versa.
Why are the Dems pandering to the GOP and Bush?
Every re-authorization of funds approves the war all over again.
Anyone who could lie about Tillman and Lynch could lie about anything.
What does it take to impeach? Torturing civilians? Lying to voters?
Overturning the constitution? Warrantless spying on citizens?
Overturning the Geneva Convention? Fraudulent war?
When will the public take their government back?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Hartung" |
|
| Title: Re: USSC decides morality now? |
09 May 2007 12:14:49 PM |
|
|
LarsensAttack wrote:
David Hartung wrote:
LarsensAttack wrote:
David Hartung wrote:
LarsensAttack wrote:
Your words, not mine, nor my thoughts. I have a problem with
ANY minority stealing another minorities lunch and the
influence of the MAJORITY to boot. We are a DEMOCRACY
in which the MAJORITY rules, not some tinpot banana republic.
Sorry, we are a republic, in which we elect representatives to serve
the best interests of the people. In the case of President Bush, he
was properly, and constitutionally elected. According to our
Constitution, he appointed justices and judges which were then
confirmed by the Senate, all in accordance with our Constitution.
These Justices then rule, also in accordance with the Constitution.
How is this wrong?
Its broken and needs fixing. If you didn't notice, we
have just seen major political tampering with the DoJ.
In what way?
Are you referring to the US Attorneys?
Have you forgotten that they serve at the pleasure of the President?
Obviously the same has happened with the USSC. There
should be some sort of litmus test to determine whether
something fishy is going on with the profiles of those
appointed, as it plainly is.
You have a vivid imagination. The fact that Bush has appointed people
who don't see things your way, is not evidence of political tampering.
It certainly is when they fit a PROFILE that does't match
the profile of the US population! Don't you get it, at all?
The profile of the USSC should match the profile of the
American population and not be heavily leveraged to one
minority. The profile of the USSC shows tampering. It shows
that there was a hidden AGENDA in the appointments.
If it was on the level the ethnic, religious and racial
distribution of the judges would fit the US population
profile. But it's so far off as to be obviously tampered with.
You are using religion as a litmus test, something which is spectroscopically
prohibited by the Constitution.
.
|
|
|
| User: "LarsensAttack BayonetVariation.net" |
|
| Title: Re: USSC decides morality now? |
09 May 2007 12:36:22 PM |
|
|
David Hartung wrote:
LarsensAttack wrote:
David Hartung wrote:
LarsensAttack wrote:
David Hartung wrote:
LarsensAttack wrote:
Your words, not mine, nor my thoughts. I have a problem with
ANY minority stealing another minorities lunch and the
influence of the MAJORITY to boot. We are a DEMOCRACY
in which the MAJORITY rules, not some tinpot banana republic.
Sorry, we are a republic, in which we elect representatives to
serve the best interests of the people. In the case of President
Bush, he was properly, and constitutionally elected. According to
our Constitution, he appointed justices and judges which were then
confirmed by the Senate, all in accordance with our Constitution.
These Justices then rule, also in accordance with the Constitution.
How is this wrong?
Its broken and needs fixing. If you didn't notice, we
have just seen major political tampering with the DoJ.
In what way?
Are you referring to the US Attorneys?
Have you forgotten that they serve at the pleasure of the President?
Obviously the same has happened with the USSC. There
should be some sort of litmus test to determine whether
something fishy is going on with the profiles of those
appointed, as it plainly is.
You have a vivid imagination. The fact that Bush has appointed people
who don't see things your way, is not evidence of political tampering.
It certainly is when they fit a PROFILE that does't match
the profile of the US population! Don't you get it, at all?
The profile of the USSC should match the profile of the
American population and not be heavily leveraged to one
minority. The profile of the USSC shows tampering. It shows
that there was a hidden AGENDA in the appointments.
If it was on the level the ethnic, religious and racial
distribution of the judges would fit the US population
profile. But it's so far off as to be obviously tampered with.
You are using religion as a litmus test, something which is
spectroscopically prohibited by the Constitution.
Well, thats the cover behind which the tampering is hiding.
What you say may be true, but it doesn't hide the fact that
tampering has occurred most egregiously to the detriment
of the MAJORITY and OTHER MINORITIES.
--
B3
==
Governments should fear their people, not vice versa.
Why are the Dems pandering to the GOP and Bush?
Every re-authorization of funds approves the war all over again.
Anyone who could lie about Tillman and Lynch could lie about anything.
What does it take to impeach? Torturing civilians? Lying to voters?
Overturning the constitution? Warrantless spying on citizens?
Overturning the Geneva Convention? Fraudulent war?
When will the public take their government back?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Hartung" |
|
| Title: Re: USSC decides morality now? |
09 May 2007 01:05:42 PM |
|
|
LarsensAttack wrote:
Well, thats the cover behind which the tampering is hiding.
What you say may be true, but it doesn't hide the fact that
tampering has occurred most egregiously to the detriment
of the MAJORITY and OTHER MINORITIES.
There is no evidence of any tampering. The simple truth is that you are a bigot.
.
|
|
|
| User: "LarsensAttack BayonetVariation.net" |
|
| Title: Re: USSC decides morality now? |
10 May 2007 08:01:27 AM |
|
|
David Hartung wrote:
LarsensAttack wrote:
Well, thats the cover behind which the tampering is hiding.
What you say may be true, but it doesn't hide the fact that
tampering has occurred most egregiously to the detriment
of the MAJORITY and OTHER MINORITIES.
There is no evidence of any tampering.
When a minority gains a majority of the USSC seats
then it is clear evidence of tampering.
The simple truth is that you are
a bigot.
Your aggressive defense posture is noted.
On the contrary, I support the US constitution.
There should not be a minority group that controls such a powerful
body. The seats that they have taken are STOLEN from other
minorities and the majority.
--
B3
==
Governments should fear their people, not vice versa.
Why are the Dems pandering to the GOP and Bush?
Every re-authorization of funds approves the war all over again.
Anyone who could lie about Tillman and Lynch could lie about anything.
What does it take to impeach? Torturing civilians? Lying to voters?
Overturning the constitution? Warrantless spying on citizens?
Overturning the Geneva Convention? Fraudulent war?
When will the public take their government back?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Hartung" |
|
| Title: Re: USSC decides morality now? |
10 May 2007 08:41:00 AM |
|
|
LarsensAttack wrote:
David Hartung wrote:
LarsensAttack wrote:
Well, thats the cover behind which the tampering is hiding.
What you say may be true, but it doesn't hide the fact that
tampering has occurred most egregiously to the detriment
of the MAJORITY and OTHER MINORITIES.
There is no evidence of any tampering.
When a minority gains a majority of the USSC seats
then it is clear evidence of tampering.
What minority?
The fact that several of the justices, according to you, happen to be Roman
Catholic is in all probability a simple coincidence. If yo believe otherwise,
provide evidence.
The simple truth is that you are
a bigot.
Your aggressive defense posture is noted.
Simply making an observation.
On the contrary, I support the US constitution.
There should not be a minority group that controls such a powerful
body. The seats that they have taken are STOLEN from other
minorities and the majority.
You appear to be a fool.
.
|
|
|
| User: "LarsensAttack BayonetVariation.net" |
|
| Title: Re: USSC decides morality now? |
10 May 2007 11:00:10 AM |
|
|
David Hartung wrote:
LarsensAttack wrote:
David Hartung wrote:
LarsensAttack wrote:
Well, thats the cover behind which the tampering is hiding.
What you say may be true, but it doesn't hide the fact that
tampering has occurred most egregiously to the detriment
of the MAJORITY and OTHER MINORITIES.
There is no evidence of any tampering.
When a minority gains a majority of the USSC seats
then it is clear evidence of tampering.
What minority?
Any minority.
The fact that several of the justices, according to you, happen to be
Roman Catholic is in all probability a simple coincidence. If yo believe
otherwise, provide evidence.
The simple truth is that you are
a bigot.
Your aggressive defense posture is noted.
Simply making an observation.
No, you are acribing words and thoughts to me that are not mine.
On the contrary, I support the US constitution.
There should not be a minority group that controls such a powerful
body. The seats that they have taken are STOLEN from other
minorities and the majority.
You appear to be a fool.
The jury remains out.
--
B3
==
Governments should fear their people, not vice versa.
Why are the Dems pandering to the GOP and Bush?
Every re-authorization of funds approves the war all over again.
Anyone who could lie about Tillman and Lynch could lie about anything.
What does it take to impeach? Torturing civilians? Lying to voters?
Overturning the constitution? Warrantless spying on citizens?
Overturning the Geneva Convention? Fraudulent war?
When will the public take their government back?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
