Posted on 12/22/2019 4:23:47 AM PST by Bull Snipe
"I beg to present you as a Christmas gift the City of Savannah, with one hundred and fifty heavy guns and plenty of ammunition and about twenty-five thousand bales of cotton." General William T. Sherman's "March to the Sea" was over. During the campaign General Sherman had made good on his promise d “to make Georgia howl”. Atlanta was a smoldering ruin, Savannah was in Union hands, closing one of the last large ports to Confederate blockade runners. Sherman’s Army wrecked 300 miles of railroad and numerous bridges and miles of telegraph lines. It seized 5,000 horses, 4,000 mules, and 13,000 head of cattle. It confiscated 9.5 million pounds of corn and 10.5 million pounds of fodder, and destroyed uncounted cotton gins and mills. In all, about 100 million dollars of damage was done to Georgia and the Confederate war effort.
Your non-analogy is idiotic. Quit embarrassing yourself.
You are speaking of remedies for bad court decisions. I am speaking of objectivity and accuracy. My point is that a court decision does not make something true out of something which is untrue.
Whatever the remedy for bad court decisions may be, my point is that court decisions are not proof of accurate interpretation of law.
Note the latest ninth circus decision regarding Arizona banning mail in ballots. All the judges who voted that this is "racist" were Clinton and Obama appointees, and all the Judges that voted there is nothing wrong with this were Republican appointees.
Come now. I have always saw it as a given that most conservatives do not trust the courts to make accurate decisions about law. Are you someone that merely accepts the ridiculous rulings of the courts without question?
I’ll be your huckleberry. Yes they are valid law under our system of government. That is the way our system was set up by the founders in the constitution. Do I believe they are moral laws? Or good? No.
And under our system if you don’t like the law their are methods of redress. You either get another case in front of the Supreme Court or you pass a constitutional amendment to change the constitution.
What you don’t do is start grabbing all federal property you can and start shooting at US forts.
Now, like the founding fathers I do believe in a natural right of revolution. And I can hypothesize situations where I would join people in that natural right. Say if the government passed a law mandating that women can only have one child and forcing women to have abortions. Or if Muslims became the majority and passed a constitutional amendment saying that sharia law was now the official law in the US.
If I did that I wouldn’t try and hide saying I had some sort of legal right to take up arms against the US. I fully know if I did such a thing and was captured by the US government that I could be hanged or shot as a traitor. Just as the founding fathers knew they could be hanged as traitors by England if they lost.
What I would not do is take up arms against my country because a party I disagreed with won a presidential election. An appeal to arms is a last resort when all other means have failed or cannot be employed.
Yes, the South as the Wife member of the relationship is quite appropriate. The "Husband" was greatly larger and stronger, and the Husband proceeded to beat the sh*t out of the uppity wife who tried to leave him.
Then he claimed to have done it for her own good because she was engaging in behavior that was okay with him before she tried to leave him.
You’re a loon...
Our system of government does not allow judges to make up bullsh*t and then call it "law." In this nation, the legislatures create state laws, and the congress creates federal laws.
What law creates a prohibition on states from banning abortion? What law creates a requirement of states to accept F@ggot marriage?
By saying you support lying judges making up fake law, you are telling me you do not grasp how law is supposed to be created in this nation.
And you are getting your intellectual @$$ whipped by a loon.
But in a divorce the division of community property is decided through negotiation and a judge rules on the final agreement. To use your analogy, the wife walked out of the marriage after helping to run up the credit cards, took every bit of joint property she could get her hands, and fired shots at the husband on her way out the door when he tried to keep part of it.
You’re smearing your own crap all over your head and then wondering why no one will come near you. “@$$ whipped”? Only in your shitty dreams.
An astute assessment on your part rockrr. Luckily they are a small minority usually associated with racist organizations like the league of the south or sons of confederate veterans. The majority of people, left or right, are not buying their garbage.
When the wife decides she wants out of a marriage, it isn't up to the judge to decide she must remain with a man she no longer wishes to be with. It's up to her.
To use your analogy, the wife walked out of the marriage after helping to run up the credit cards, took every bit of joint property she could get her hands, and fired shots at the husband on her way out the door when he tried to keep part of it.
God! You people are really terrible at putting forth analogies. Firstly, it is the *WIFE* that paid for the bulk of everything. Secondly, all the property in question was stuff any reasonable person would acknowledge would be her stuff after the divorce, thirdly your claim that she "fired shots at the husband" means she used lethal force that could have killed him, (presumably referring to Ft. Sumter Union) is a ridiculous over reaction to an event that in no way threatened the continuation of the Union.
This is more accurate. The wife said "I am leaving." He gripped her arm more tightly. She slapped him. He then beat her near to death and said "You will never leave me or I will kill you."
See? That fits all the bits perfectly. Oh, and he raped her before he was done.
The courts interpret the law, that is the way our system was set up. We can disagree with it and try to change it, but it is the law of the land. The right to privacy is the law in our country. Do I think it was applied wrongly to abortion? yes. But your going to get bad interpretations because we are human.
As far as gay marriage goes I think the Supreme Court was wrong because marriage requirements are up to the states, except for race due to the 14th amendment. In that situation though states that had approved same sex marriage through their legislative body(and I think their were five at that point) would have gay marriage the others wouldn’t. However, under the full faith and credit clause other states would have to recognize those marriages.
This is the reason I was always for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman instead of that defense of marriage act.
I thought it was just the liberals who scream "RACISM" at anyone disagreeing with them.
An ad hominem is your response? How about addressing the point about Judges making up fake law and then shoving it down the throats of the rest of us and forcing us to accept it?
Beginning to think some of you actually favor totalitarianism.
Only in your deluded mind is your scenario in anyway related to what happened in 1860. His scenario, however, is spot on.
Making up fake law is not "interpreting" it. Again, I ask you where in all the congressional laws or constitutional laws is there a law that says States are prohibited from making laws banning abortion?
And by this I mean banning laws that have existed since at least the late 19th century and weren't considered "unconstitutional" until 1973.
Point out the law and I will concede the point.
However, under the full faith and credit clause other states would have to recognize those marriages.
Did this "full faith and credit" require states to recognize other states laws regarding servitude?
Seems like this "full faith and credit" argument is a buffet where Judges just pick what they like, and then force everyone else to eat what they picked rather than what the people themselves might want.
Doodle is a her, not a him.
And you think fort Sumter represented the equivalent of nearly killing the Union?
Hyperbole much?
Yeah, I’m funny that way. I dislike feeding into people’s psychosis.
What was so precious about “The Union” that needed to be preserved?
The real issue was State’s Rights, which they were promised when they signed up.
Imagine if instead of forcing states to give up slaves the federal government forced them to do something else... like buy health insurance.
The belief that anyone disagreeing with your world view has a psychosis is very much the same sort of mental problem.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.