Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 5/29/2002 2:45:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/29/2002 2:52:11 PM EDT by The_Macallan]
[url=http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/05/29/scotus.staterights.ap/index.html]Supreme Court backs states against feds[/url] Though this is a win for states-rights and the Constitution, a few quotes make me want to gag: ---------------------------------------------- [i]The Supreme Court says states have wide immunity when federal agencies investigate complaints about them, then challenge their activities. Tuesday's 5-4 ruling featured the same majority of justices that has decided in favor of states and against the federal government in a series of cases over the past several years. [b]Court conservatives[/b], headed by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, united in upholding an appeals court ruling that state boards like the South Carolina Ports Authority have protection from federal action in courts and in federal agency administrative proceedings. The ruling could jeopardize federal efforts to ensure worker safety, patient protections, commerce and even national security, Justice Stephen Breyer complained.[/i] ------------------------------------------------ So while Rehnquist is labeled by the Associated Press as one of the "[u]court conservatives[/u]", why doesn't the AP label Breyer as one of the "[u]court liberals[/u]"??? [i]pssst... because the Associated Press is [/i][b]BIASED!![/b]. more... ------------------------------------------------ [i]Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, said the framers of the constitution "likely did not envision the intrusion on state sovereignty at issue in today's case." He said the court is "nonetheless confident that it is contrary to their constitutional design." "By guarding against encroachments by the federal government on fundamental aspects of state sovereignty ... we strive to maintain the balance of power embodied in our Constitution and thus to reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front," Thomas wrote.[/i] ------------------------------------------------ EXCELLENT! They are actually trying to follow the intent of the FFs in interpreting the Constitution. How NOVEL! Okay now, here's the kicker from the Court Liberal Breyer: ------------------------------------------------ [i][b]Breyer said the majority focuses on [red]"highly abstract" phrases[/red] like state dignity and system of federalism instead of things like liberty and due process of law. "They suffer from the disadvantage that [red]they do not actually appear in the Constitution[/red]," he said.[/b][/i] ------------------------------------------------ [puke] A LIBERAL is actually saying that the Court should [b]NARROWLY[/b] interpret the [b]LITERAL[/b] words of Constitution and [b]NOT[/b] inject words and meanings into the Constitution that aren't already there?!? WTF - Has Hitler frozen solid?! What about words like "machinegun" and "abortion" Justice Breyer?? Don't they also "suffer from the disadvantage that they do not actually appear in the Constitution."?? [b]HolyMuthaF@ckingPilesOfHorsesh!t do I HATE hypocritical Liberals [/b][pissed]
Link Posted: 5/29/2002 2:55:00 PM EDT
Because there are conservatives and then everyone else... you know, the "normal" people: liberals, socialists, communists...
Top Top