[Sibre Fan]

Yet another bought-off/threatened/treasonous/cowardly/Democrat judge...

Actually, a three-judge panel decided this appeal. Two were appointed by Democrats (Carter/Clinton); one by Republican (Bush I).

The decision was unanimous, which means that the "Republican" judge agreed with the ruling.

2012 is the peaceful means for bringing about change within the system.

[IntolerantOfTreason]

“The decision was unanimous, which means that the “Republican” judge agreed with the ruling.”
You think that means anything these days? I’m finding it hard to name more than a handful of people in the GOP who support the constitution any more.

This so called “conservative” party will not be getting my vote until they get their act together and realise that even Zero has to obey the constitution.

[The Comedian]

2012 is the peaceful means for bringing about change within the system.

Uh huh.

We're in an airtight room, with 12 hours of air left, up to our ankles in gasoline, the Democrats are in the corner throwing lit matches at us and each other, and your suggestion is to wait 3 years for the cavalry to show up and take their matches away.

There's a fine line between patience and denial-flavored fatal gullibility.

Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

[El Gato]

2012 is the peaceful means for bringing about change within the system.

Assuming there is an honest election in 2012. After all if no one can sue to enforce Article I section 1 clause 5, why would they be able to sue to enforce the preceeding four clauses and the XIIth, XXth and XXIInd amendments? Particularly first clause of the XXth amendment.

No particularized "injury" would occur if those Constitutional provisions were violated, would they?