Originally Posted by BBQMan

Why? Because it is factual and an honest reading of the law, or do you believe that this should not be a nation of laws?

Sure thats it....I think we should do away with all laws.

I keep telling myself: "Don't respond to any post by Cologal".

Then I respond because the posts make me mad.

I respond even tho Cologal will never accept the facts and responds to them with the most insulting comments.

Originally Posted by cashman

I keep telling myself: "Don't respond to any post by Cologal".

Then I respond because the posts make me mad.

I respond even tho Cologal will never accept the facts and responds to them with the most insulting comments.

Why would anyone ask this question:

do you believe that this should not be a nation of laws? It deserved the flippant answer it got.

Why is it that only your comments or explanations are facts? I post something and it gets dismissed as liberal hate speech. I ask for some one to point out the hate speech....nothing.

In this case the poster said because Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion my argument was wrong I guess because Kennedy sometimes leans left. But I am still entitled to my opinion as you are to yours.

Originally Posted by Bucco

Curious exactly what is FUNNY ??????

He gave me a definition of a corporation and Kennedy wrote the opinion so my argument is wrong.


That was what was funny.

And why insult the many lesbian women who live in The Villages?
You do your thing (or not!), they do their thing. The nominee is to be judged on her credentials and acumen...not some speculative gossip or how much she weighs or where she went to school or what shoes she wears (the Pope has been criticized for his shoes!). Get a grip...get a life.

Originally Posted by Donna2

If Harriet Meirs wasn't qualified, why is this person qualified? They have basically the same references.

Surely you jest...Meirs was so unfit for the position that even Bush's Republican friends in Congress opposed her. That's why the nomination was withdrawn.
There's no comparison. The nominee has argued before the Supreme Court as Solicitor General so she knows the court very well.

Originally Posted by cologal

He gave me a definition of a corporation and Kennedy wrote the opinion so my argument is wrong.


That was what was funny.

I'll try to explain this to you one more time Cologal. Saratogaman said in response to me; basically ("You don't think Scalia, Thomas, Roberts or Alito are judicial activists; give me a break!!").

So; I said "Name one of their rulings that makes new law instead of interpretation"; in so many words.

No one has come up with a ruling crafted by any of them to dispute me and the case you noted, although I think it still is not making new law, is not a ruling by the 4 named justices.

I hope this clears this up for you. Not funny anymore, huh?

Originally Posted by RichieLion

I'll try to explain this to you one more time Cologal. Saratogaman said in response to me; basically ("You don't think Scalia, Thomas, Roberts or Alito are judicial activists; give me a break!!").

So; I said "Name one of their rulings that makes new law instead of interpretation"; in so many words.

No one has come up with a ruling crafted by any of them to dispute me and the case you noted, although I think it still is not making new law, is not a ruling by the 4 named justices.

I hope this clears this up for you. Not funny anymore, huh?

I believe that they are judicial activists... just as many right wing people see the liberals on the court a jugical activists. The activist part is in the eye of the beholder. On this we will have agree to disagree.

Originally Posted by saratogaman

Surely you jest...Meirs was so unfit for the position that even Bush's Republican friends in Congress opposed her. That's why the nomination was withdrawn.
There's no comparison. The nominee has argued before the Supreme Court as Solicitor General so she knows the court very well.

This is exactly the same as the Harriet Meirs nomination. A person with no judicial experience is being nominated for the highest court in the land.

The difference is that, in general and in the case of Harriet Meirs, is that the Republicans were more true to their values than Democrats. Republicans saw an inexperienced candidate and balked at confirming that candidate. The Democrats know Kagan is unqualified but they're a bunch of rubber-stamping, valueless, kool-aid drinking sycophants of the Obama Regime.

That's spin, pure and simple. The recent decision to allow corporations and unions to give unlimited amounts of money to political campaigns -- previously limited by law -- is judicial activism. Period.

Originally Posted by saratogaman

That's spin, pure and simple. The recent decision to allow corporations and unions to give unlimited amounts of money to political campaigns -- previously limited by law -- is judicial activism. Period.

No, in actuality, this ruling overturned bad law prohibited by the Constitution, and I can't believe that you are even ignoring the original point of the question, when you were the one who started it.

Originally Posted by cologal

I believe that they are judicial activists... just as many right wing people see the liberals on the court a jugical activists. The activist part is in the eye of the beholder. On this we will have agree to disagree.

No, activism is not in the eye of the beholder.

Judicial Activism is when the Supreme Court makes law with a fanciful reading of supposed intent of the Constitution.

Your view of Judicial Activism is when the Supreme Court does not agree with a view of yours.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

No, activism is not in the eye of the beholder.

Judicial Activism is when the Supreme Court makes law with a fanciful reading of supposed intent of the Constitution.

Your view of Judicial Activism is when the Supreme Court does not agree with a view of yours.

Then who decides what is fanciful? See it is in the eye of the beholder what you may see as a fanciful reading I may see as a strict interruption.


Thanks I am glad we got to that point.

Originally Posted by cologal

Then who decides what is fanciful? See it is in the eye of the beholder what you may see as a fanciful reading I may see as a strict interruption.


Thanks I am glad we got to that point.

Fanciful is when you try to use a decision to deprive a person of his rights under the Constitution by inventing a reason to deprive someone of those rights. When a decision is made which restores these Constitutional rights, such as in the overturning of an ill conceived law in the case previously mentioned, how can that be called fanciful?

Originally Posted by RichieLion

I gave you the definition of a corporation and If you choose to ignore the fact of it there is nothing else to say to someone whose mind is made up in spite of facts. (Also, again, again, and again; the brief was written by Kennedy and is thereby invalid as an answer to the original question.)

Clearly, your mind is made up and I will not waste my time by confusing you with the facts. Your postings shed no light, show no interest in learning what and why others think the way they do. Tell us why there may be room for dialogue...how we may learn from you and how you may learn from us. Do you want to dialogue or pontificate?
If the former, I'm open; if the latter, I'm not interested and unimpressed.