[Charles Henrickson]

Supreme pizza . . . peach ice cream . . . mmmm . . .

[rockrr]

All of us have hopes and aspirations to one degree or another, but what sick, twisted pathology would compel these DUmmies to set themselves up for repeated failure again and again?

They work themselves up to a fever-pitch over the goofiest of crap only to crash & burn. Then they find something else to obsess about......or like a broken record return to their last failure and try to “fix” it, certain that *this* time will be the charm.

Thanks Charles!

[mikrofon]

Fascist 5

The DUmmies probably think of the remaining Justices much as the "Fantastic Four", who they hope will defend the world against the advance of right-wing hegemony and make the country safe for Progressivism.

In fact, let's make a comparison between this group and the comic characters (the F4, that is)-

Mister Fantastic: The soon-to-retire J.P. Stevens, "Liberal Lion" of the Court.
Human Torch: Stephen Breyer, never averse to setting fire to the Constitution when necessary.
Invisible Woman: Sonia Sotomayor- not much to see there, but the 'wise Latino' will undoubtedly come through.
The Thing: Well....

[Cyber Liberty]

There are a lot of FReeper Trolls today. Did they pass a hat for your supreme pizza? Peach ice cream? Are you pregnant?

[loboinok]

IF illegal corruption is clearly proven in a court of law and not blogs -absolutely agree

You let this one get by you. ;0)

[supercat]

I can understand why honest Supreme Court judges might feel a need to maintain civility, but I do sometimes wish that they would point out in dissents that the authority to "say what the law is" referred to in Marbury v. Madison does not imply that the law conforms to whatever they say. The Supreme Court is can only legitimately make decisions consistent with the Supreme Law of the Land. Any decisions contrary to the Supreme Law of the Land are illegitimate, and citizens have a right and duty to recognize them as such.

Incidentally, I'd also like to see a judge mention that judicial precedents don't even rank on the "supremacy" scale (with the Constitution, treaties, statutes, etc.). The only time it's worthwhile to consider precedent is when those other laws would be ambiguous. If the law would clearly require judges reach a particular decision, any precedent would either be redundant (if it supports the decision), inapplicable (if it doesn't fit quite the same situation as the current case) or illegitimate (if it would fit the current case, but disagrees with what the law requires).

[infidel29]

What the people need to do is protest in front of the SCOTUS day by day.

HA!!! LOUSY FREEPER TROLL!! We all know DUmmies use the abbreviation USSC (they seem to LOVE the USS... something) abbreviation.