Posted: 3/7/2011 1:42:32 PM EDT
|
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20110307/pl_politico/50757 Still reeling from a 2010 Supreme Court ruling that opened the door to an explosion of political ads from corporate interests, and fearful the court could overturn President Barack Obama’s healthcare overhaul, liberal groups have launched an aggressive – and at times personal – attack on the court’s most conservative justices.  |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's only a matter of time before the pinkos begin rounding up their enemies. 
It's likely that a psychiatrist could help you overcome these delusional anxieties. A session with a historian would probably knock you out of your delusional equanimity. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: It's only a matter of time before the pinkos begin rounding up their enemies. It's likely that a psychiatrist could help you overcome these delusional anxieties. Leftists always murder their opponents. Be it non-leftists or other leftists who they consider competition. Laugh all you want, but they murdered 100 million people during the 20th century. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's only a matter of time before the pinkos begin rounding up their enemies.
It's likely that a psychiatrist could help you overcome these delusional anxieties. A session with a historian would probably knock you out of your delusional equanimity. Logic doesn't work on azjms LW303  
|
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: It's only a matter of time before the pinkos begin rounding up their enemies. It's likely that a psychiatrist could help you overcome these delusional anxieties. A session with a historian would probably knock you out of your delusional equanimity. An understanding of history is what gives me the pity I have for people who worry about John Kerry putting them in a gulag. |
|
Quoted: The LA Times had an article yesterday going after Clarence Thomas. Thomas was a big mistake, unfortunately. He's a reliable vote, but that's it. An opportunity to have an influential conservative jurist put on the court that was wasted, and in its place an vote-automaton object of ridicule. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's only a matter of time before the pinkos begin rounding up their enemies.
It's likely that a psychiatrist could help you overcome these delusional anxieties. A session with a historian would probably knock you out of your delusional equanimity. It doesn't seem likely to happen here. But the far left would do it if they could. It is their limited ability and not their restraint that prevents it. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The LA Times had an article yesterday going after Clarence Thomas. Thomas was a big mistake, unfortunately. He's a reliable vote, but that's it. An opportunity to have an influential conservative jurist put on the court that was wasted, and in its place an vote-automaton object of ridicule. Bullshit. He's the one who most consistently follows the constitution. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The LA Times had an article yesterday going after Clarence Thomas. Thomas was a big mistake, unfortunately. He's a reliable vote, but that's it. An opportunity to have an influential conservative jurist put on the court that was wasted, and in its place an vote-automaton object of ridicule. Bullshit. He's the one who most consistently follows the constitution. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The LA Times had an article yesterday going after Clarence Thomas. Thomas was a big mistake, unfortunately. He's a reliable vote, but that's it. An opportunity to have an influential conservative jurist put on the court that was wasted, and in its place an vote-automaton object of ridicule. Bullshit. He's the one who most consistently follows the constitution.
A real example would do more for your argument than a goofy face. I'll wait while you find one. |
|
Quoted:
An understanding of history is what gives me the pity I have for people who worry about John Kerry putting them in a gulag. Considering Kerry's willingness to sell out his buddies right after he returned from the war, for personal political gain, I wouldn't underestimate what he would be willing to do. Hell, he effectively lied in front of Congress while calling his buddies rapists and murderers. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: The LA Times had an article yesterday going after Clarence Thomas. Thomas was a big mistake, unfortunately. He's a reliable vote, but that's it. An opportunity to have an influential conservative jurist put on the court that was wasted, and in its place an vote-automaton object of ridicule. as predicted. I expect more anti-Thomas threads as arfcom jumps on the bandwagon. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The LA Times had an article yesterday going after Clarence Thomas. Thomas was a big mistake, unfortunately. He's a reliable vote, but that's it. An opportunity to have an influential conservative jurist put on the court that was wasted, and in its place an vote-automaton object of ridicule. Reliable in what way? His votes are predictable, or he votes with the conservative block? History will decide his influence. Some of the most influential Supreme Court opinions have been concurring opinions. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The LA Times had an article yesterday going after Clarence Thomas. Thomas was a big mistake, unfortunately. He's a reliable vote, but that's it. An opportunity to have an influential conservative jurist put on the court that was wasted, and in its place an vote-automaton object of ridicule. Reliable in what way? His votes are predictable, or he votes with the conservative block? History will decide his influence. Some of the most influential Supreme Court opinions have been concurring opinions. True. On Heller, he was the only one to go with P&I. He seems to actually understand freedom. |
|
Quoted:
Good plan, attack someone who has a lifetime appointment. Keep it up  No doubt! What's the point in going after people who have lifetime appointments? I hate Kagan and Sotomayor, for the dirty whores they are, but there's not one thing that can be done about it now. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
This is sickening! And yet there are people here that call us Conservatives delusional? Up is down and black is white....
|
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The LA Times had an article yesterday going after Clarence Thomas. Thomas was a big mistake, unfortunately. He's a reliable vote, but that's it. An opportunity to have an influential conservative jurist put on the court that was wasted, and in its place an vote-automaton object of ridicule. Reliable in what way? His votes are predictable, or he votes with the conservative block? History will decide his influence. Some of the most influential Supreme Court opinions have been concurring opinions. True. On Heller, he was the only one to go with P&I. He seems to actually understand freedom. He doesn't "understand freedom" in any sense that has anything to do with the constitution or our system of government or making anything better. He's certainly no Antonin Scalia, that's for sure. His left-field creative legal musings, like "P&I" in the micky deez case, are evidence that he's essentially a seat-filling vote machine. Imagine if instead, we'd have got someone like Scalia. |
|
Disgraceful. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's only a matter of time before the pinkos begin rounding up their enemies.
It's likely that a psychiatrist could help you overcome these delusional anxieties. A session with a historian would probably knock you out of your delusional equanimity. Logic doesn't work on azjms LW303 If you all would quit quoting him, I would never even know he posted 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The LA Times had an article yesterday going after Clarence Thomas. Thomas was a big mistake, unfortunately. He's a reliable vote, but that's it. An opportunity to have an influential conservative jurist put on the court that was wasted, and in its place an vote-automaton object of ridicule. Reliable in what way? His votes are predictable, or he votes with the conservative block? History will decide his influence. Some of the most influential Supreme Court opinions have been concurring opinions. True. On Heller, he was the only one to go with P&I. He seems to actually understand freedom. He doesn't "understand freedom" in any sense that has anything to do with the constitution or our system of government or making anything better. He's certainly no Antonin Scalia, that's for sure. His left-field creative legal musings, like "P&I" in the heller case, are evidence that he's essentially a seat-filling vote machine. Imagine if instead, we'd have got someone like Scalia. If you were such the expert on Thomas's opinions you purport to be, you would have realized that Thomas's P&I concurrence wasn't in Heller. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The LA Times had an article yesterday going after Clarence Thomas. Thomas was a big mistake, unfortunately. He's a reliable vote, but that's it. An opportunity to have an influential conservative jurist put on the court that was wasted, and in its place an vote-automaton object of ridicule. Reliable in what way? His votes are predictable, or he votes with the conservative block? History will decide his influence. Some of the most influential Supreme Court opinions have been concurring opinions. True. On Heller, he was the only one to go with P&I. He seems to actually understand freedom. He doesn't "understand freedom" in any sense that has anything to do with the constitution or our system of government or making anything better. He's certainly no Antonin Scalia, that's for sure. His left-field creative legal musings, like "P&I" in the heller case, are evidence that he's essentially a seat-filling vote machine. Imagine if instead, we'd have got someone like Scalia. If you were such the expert on Thomas's opinions you purport to be, you would have realized that Thomas's P&I concurrence wasn't in Heller. Quit quoting someone that is on so many ignore lists! |
|
Quoted: Purport to be where?Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The LA Times had an article yesterday going after Clarence Thomas. Thomas was a big mistake, unfortunately. He's a reliable vote, but that's it. An opportunity to have an influential conservative jurist put on the court that was wasted, and in its place an vote-automaton object of ridicule. Reliable in what way? His votes are predictable, or he votes with the conservative block? History will decide his influence. Some of the most influential Supreme Court opinions have been concurring opinions. True. On Heller, he was the only one to go with P&I. He seems to actually understand freedom. He doesn't "understand freedom" in any sense that has anything to do with the constitution or our system of government or making anything better. He's certainly no Antonin Scalia, that's for sure. His left-field creative legal musings, like "P&I" in the heller case, are evidence that he's essentially a seat-filling vote machine. Imagine if instead, we'd have got someone like Scalia. If you were such the expert on Thomas's opinions you purport to be, you would have realized that Thomas's P&I concurrence wasn't in Heller. I'll edit my post for you. |
|
Quoted: Is there anyone the Liberals don't attack  Conservative: The 2nd Amendment needs to be upheld. Liberal 1: Your mother's a whore! Liberal 2: Woah man, I think he's a douchenozzle and I don't like the 2nd Amendment, but why do you have to bring his mother into this? Liberal 1: Liberal 2's mother is a lesbian whore with Conservative's mother! Liberal 2 is a traitor! In short, they won't attack anyone who agrees 100% with whatever bullshit they feel like spouting at that minute. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The LA Times had an article yesterday going after Clarence Thomas. Thomas was a big mistake, unfortunately. He's a reliable vote, but that's it. An opportunity to have an influential conservative jurist put on the court that was wasted, and in its place an vote-automaton object of ridicule. Reliable in what way? His votes are predictable, or he votes with the conservative block? History will decide his influence. Some of the most influential Supreme Court opinions have been concurring opinions. True. On Heller, he was the only one to go with P&I. He seems to actually understand freedom. He doesn't "understand freedom" in any sense that has anything to do with the constitution or our system of government or making anything better. He's certainly no Antonin Scalia, that's for sure. His left-field creative legal musings, like "P&I" in the heller case, are evidence that he's essentially a seat-filling vote machine. Imagine if instead, we'd have got someone like Scalia. If you were such the expert on Thomas's opinions you purport to be, you would have realized that Thomas's P&I concurrence wasn't in Heller.
It was in the Chicago case, wasn't it? |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Is there anyone the Liberals don't attack Conservative: The 2nd Amendment needs to be upheld. Liberal 1: Your mother's a whore! Liberal 2: Woah man, I think he's a douchenozzle and I don't like the 2nd Amendment, but why do you have to bring his mother into this? Liberal 1: Liberal 2's mother is a lesbian whore with Conservative's mother! Liberal 2 is a traitor! In short, they won't attack anyone who agrees 100% with whatever bullshit they feel like spouting at that minute. In a nut shell. |