so you will grant as much power as possible to kagan, sotomoyor and ginsburg in the name of "less government"



I apologize for saying you sociopathic.  Your problem is much simpler than that.

The steady growth of government over my life has been unconstitutional and dictatorial as well. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Finally, the correct answer.

 
I was speaking English. Or are you asking if I think he looks like a bitch? Or if it was a tasty burger? I don't know, bro.

Depressing reality right there.  

 


The last 7 years we've seen a massive bloating of power to the Executive, the neutering of the Legislative, and now, the wholesale corruption of the Judicial.  Along with the gutting of the military and the complete cooption of the press.  




Not that some of this hasn't already been happening for a long time, but this regime has fast-tracked it all, at an alarming rate.


 

\captain obvious

So yes, you believe that dictatorial and unconstitutional actions ARE justified if they deliver the "ends" that you prefer.

 It's a good thing you aren't bound by any oaths to the Constitution.

Whatever you want it to mean, bro.

What you fail to understand is that I have not granted a single person at any position in government power.  Every bit of power they have over you and I they inherited from our forefathers or took at the point of the gun.  Some of it with the support of liberals, some of it with the stamp of approval of conservatives, and virtually none of it with anything other than a bare smidge of a "majority" at either time. Furthermore as the power tides ebb and flow it's clear to me now that virtually none of these power grabs have ever been nor will they ever be voluntarily undone.  

I'm just going to spend my last years cheering when other branches of government get paid back for the fuckings they've been passing around.  Doesn't matter who does it anymore.

Sure kagan, soto, and ginsy, will take a shot at fucking me another way next year, It's what they do.  Scalia, Roberts, and Alito will come around for theirs as well.  In and out, in and out, liberal conservative, in and out.

I'm simply deign to do what I please. Government does it, so can I.

 
On what planet would anybody give enough of a fuck to pull the wool over ol' Cincinnatus's eyes over a question he's trying to structure? You sound just like the tards that parrot off that jet fuel can't melt steel beams.


News Flash: Not everybody you talk to fits in to the neat little boxes you try to fit them inside of. When you look outside, there are colors that exist other than black and white.

Which decisions by Scalia, Thomas and Alito have fucked you or were "unconstitutional"?

Scalia? Gonzalez v. Raich.

It has nothing to do with a neat little box, or something you saw on South Park.   It's about preference of certain Justices over others.  

It's a simple question and you haven't the moral courage to answer it.  

Holy shit, she's the Oracle of Delphi.  

That's the whole thing isn't it, when they say it's constitutional it just is right?

Scalia never met a War on Drugs 4A exception that didn't give him a blue-veined throbber.  I'm not going through mounds of SCOTUS rulings to find them, but generally if police power won a SCOTUS case, it was the "conservatives" in the majority.

I'm not seeing whats funny.

she and the other dyke should have recused themselves

 
It's not a simple question for somebody who doesn't follow the black and white party lines you try to enforce. Somebody with integrity would never ask leading questions to begin with. But we both know you lack that.


Neither of us have the time to sit and discuss the pros and cons of the justices. So, I'll break down my neither decision in the simplest of terms for you.


I want justices that would have voted no to the Obamacare ruling and yes to the gay marriage ruling.


You can attempt to scrutinize that however you want. Neither of those groups have my preference.

Nope, you're wrong.  Most of the cases in recent years, from use of Dogs, FLIR and GPS trackers, it was the "conservatives" in the majority striking down the excessive police intrusion (with only one case having Alito join Liberals on the issue of dogs).

I guess it plays into a predictable stereotype (not you).

Bullshit.  You're just avoiding the question.

It's not a leading question, it's just a simple question of preference.  It has nothing to do with "party lines," it's about specific Justices and the decisions that make.

There is no utopian menu of Justice choices.  They are real people with whom you may or may not agree some of the time, most of the time, or never.

Ooooookay.

HMMMMMM did they.....

CHANGE THEIR MINDS???

O teh noes

I had guessed his answer would be about weed.  

As to how he or you were personally "fucked" by the decision, I can't imagine.

As to whether it was "unconstitutional".... once it's decided, it magically becomes Constitutional, right?

I didn't go any further back than the multitude of recent cases, given we were discussing THESE Justices.  Are you aware of NOT recent cases where these Justices ruled in favor of police intrusion?

Its not a 'weed' decision.  Its an Interstate Commerce Clause decision.

Scalia concurred with the majority, which voted to uphold the stupid and ass-backwards reading of the ICC that gives the government so much of its unconstitutional power.

And to do it, he did a shit job distinguishing one of the great conservative judicial achievements of the post-Warren Court era, US v. Lopez.

damn, there is no revolution, it's all about rights and love.........I know because there are plenty here that insist on it.

Wouldn't surprise me.  Saying what we all want to hear to get appointed.  

Isn't she a bull dyke anyways?

Yeah, well that answers why the supreme court building resembles a Grecian Temple.

Doctor, I completely recognize that I am over my head, swimming in your lane.   So I will respectfully ask why you changed THIS:



To THIS:




I am genuinely curious as to your thought process and choice of words.

Thank you.

So they get the decoder ring.... Cool.

Judges are lawyers and if a lawyers mouth is moving they are lying. No different than a politician, just much more dangerous.

Doctor, I am not.

Eviscerating would mean he overruled it, struck it down, etc.  He didn't do that.  He couldn't, he thinks US v. Lopez was decided correctly.

Instead, he distinguished it, and tried to argue that US v. Lopez was decided correctly AND Gonzalez v. Raich was decided correctly.  Its bullshit.  Lopez says the commerce clause is not unlimited, Gonzalez says it is.

To my knowledge, and I will admit its been a couple years since I looked, the Supreme Court struck down exactly one federal law on the basis of Lopez (the Violence Against Women Act, which pre-dated Gonzalez v. Raich).

So Lopez has been confined to its facts, and never used again.  In part because Scalia, much like a lot of libertarians, can't get past WEED.

Really?

Are you sure about that?

So if I want to be a Doctor (of whatever kind) and yet  lack the education, knowledge, experience, and testing requirements, the state HAS to allow me to practice as a Doctor (of whatever kind).?
So if I want to be a C.P.A. and yet I lack the education, knowledge, experience, and testing requirements, the state HAS to allow me to practice as a C.P.A.?
So if I want to be an Architect.and yet I lack the education, knowledge, experience, and testing requirements, the state HAS to allow me to practice as an Architect?
So if I want to be a Landscape Architect and yet I lack the education, knowledge, experience, and testing requirements, the state HAS to allow me to practice as a Landscape Architect?
So if I want to be a Real Estate Agent and yet I lack the education, knowledge, experience, and testing requirements, the state HAS to allow me to practice as a Realtor?

So if I want to drive an automobile on public roads. and yet I lack the education, knowledge, experience, and testing requirements, the state HAS to allow me to drive an motorized vehicle on public roads?

So if I wish to carry a firearm or explosives or a raging kitten on my person and in public and yet I lack the education, knowledge, experience, and testing requirements (or whatever test the state may have come up with, if any), the state HAS to allow me to do these things wherever I like and whenever I like?

What about other states?

If a person is a  member of the bar in Washington State is Florida required to allow that person to practice law in Florida with out going through any additional hoops?

Or do I not have a right to have an occupation, to travel, and to protect myself?

The right of protection (or at least the prohibition against the Federal government from infringing upon it) is enshrined in the 2A in the Federal Constitution and is duplicated (more or less) in many state constitutions.

The right to travel (yes driving IS a right) and to engage in commerce were considered to be so fundamental to a free people they were not even mentioned in the Federal Constitution (although many founders wrote about them).

What am I missing here?





You may want to rethink that position.     States are prohibited from engaging in literacy tests as a condition of voting due to Federal law and Congress only has that authority because the Constitution was amended to give it to them (24A).  

Regarding voting:

States are punished (via representation) via Section II of the 14th Amendment if they use any method to deny or abridge the people's (males over the age of 21) right to vote.

Sates cannot discriminate due to race due to the 15th amendment.  

States cannot discriminate due to sex due to the 19th amendment.

The 24th Amendment specifically prohibits the states from requiring taxes for the people to vote and and specifically authorizes Congress the power to enforce it  

The 26th Amendment prohibits the states from discriminating based on age (at the age of 18 or older).


 The issue of the states restricting voting was seen as so important  the Constitution was amended no fewer than FIVE TIMES to address the issue.

How many times has our Constitution been specifically amended to prohibit states from discriminating in the areas of marriage certificates based upon sex?  






If the states are prohibited from "discriminate against others for any reason" then where does that end?

Does it end?

If the states cannot "discriminate against others for any reason"  then how can they limit marriage to one person?
If the states cannot "discriminate against others for any reason"  then how can they limit marriage due to age (age of consent is arbitrary and modern AOC is higher than found in history).
If the states cannot "discriminate against others for any reason"  then how can they limit marriage to people?  

If the states cannot "discriminate against others for any reason"  then how can they limit marriage at all?!

I have see the argument "well people can marry pets" discarded as silly so many times and, to a rational person, that argument should be silly.   However we must recognize that limiting marriage to people is a limit we have set and one that is ultimately discriminatory (even if for good reasons).    

Furthermore, there are people in our society who believe animals should be afforded the same rights and privileges humans enjoy.    That argument, as silly as it may sound, is coming.  

If marriage is to be so open ended and to be so lacking in even the most fundamental of restrictions then I am left with one question:  why have marriage certificates at all?

The building was completed 30 years before we mere mortals were informed of the existence and importance of the emanations and penumbras, so I don't know whether there is some connection.

It might help if I could see the P & E, but of course that is not possible.

This happens to every Supreme Court nominee upon confirmation.  











 

Justice Douglas did not reveal how the exalted ones can see that which mere commoners can not.
Some have suggested that the use of psychoactive substances is the source of the ability, others have suggested illumination of an unspecified nature. Your suggestion seems as good as the others.

I imagine they sit together at a long table taking turns passing around and shaking a magical 8 ball while paying special attention to the penumbra.

Nothing so sophisticated.  They go to haughty NY/DC socialite parties.  "Darling isn't it just terrible how gays can't get married?"  If at least 12 wealthy socialites express their displeasure on something, then a penumbra is created.  
 

That actually makes a lot of sense... I wonder if the creation of a penumbra also creates joinder (Gold fringe admiralty flag or not)?

Perhaps we can get the SCOTUS to rule on that in the future... Or just ask  12 wealthy socialites and save the time.  

You guys can't read, Scalia told us how they do it in his dissent. Chinese Take Out with extra cookies.

"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.”

...and what of the penumbra?    

Both suggestions are possible.
If I were younger, I would devote myself to an investigation of the process or mechanism through which the Fine Nine are able to discern the emanations and penumbras and the words and concepts contained therein.
Alas, I fear I have too few years left before I pass from this veil of tears to complete such an endeavor.

The mystical aphorisms are only visible within the emanations and penumbras.

...but does it create joinder?!  Is the gold fringe on an admiralty flag required for joinder?   Do two males have the right to create joinder?

  These are the pertinent questions of our age!

He's not gonna tell us everything! I think some things can only be known when wearing the magical robe. (And doily if you're Ginsburg.)

Who are you, and what have you done with Hugo Stiglitz?

The States are quaint concept, anyhow.  

Now that we need not see them in the Constitution, privileges and "rights" will be pulled out of thin air.

We'll let the States determine their State Bird and things like that.   But I want equal protection to kick in when it comes to the "official State Food."  Ohio has sausages and Chicken Fried steaks.  Most of the other states have nuts and berries.  THAT isn't fair.