Replies

Congressman Billybob:
Two threads on FreeRepublic have already mentioned this subject. Though there's more detail in my article because I do, after all, practice in the US Supreme Court.
Lemme know what you think.
1 -bb-

As I told you on your first thread, you are hyping the issue beyond reason.
The liberal judges on the USSC will be controled by our system of checks & balances between Fed & State power, ~if~ it is allowed to operate.

Politically, this is not happening.

Demanding that states have the power to ignore our bill of rights in the writing of unreasonable regulations on such issues as capital punishment of the mentally ill & sexual 'sin' laws, is a violation of the lawyers oath to protect and defend, imo.. - Thus, it is part of the political problem.

Sure, the liberal justices are 'far out', but so are rabble-rousing 'states rightists'. They are just on opposite ends of the constitutional spectrum.
30 -tpaine-

I have no idea where you get the idea that the states can or should "ignore the Bill of Rights." I've never suggested any such thing.
-Billybob-

"She did not see fit to mention the inconvenient detail that most death penalty cases in the US arise under the criminal laws of the various sovereign states, and that the US Constitution gives the subject of criminal law to the state governments themselves, acting on behalf of their own citizens.

The same point applied to the other example which she cited with favor, the Texas sodomy statute which the Court struck down, -- "
--from your article--

Since the texas sodomy law decision, you have been posting & writing threads advocating that states have the power to ignore our bill of rights in the writing of regulations on such issues as capital punishment of the mentally ill & sexual 'sin' laws, and that the USSC is running amok by striking down such laws.

When confronted, you attempt to bafflegab the issue with ploys about 'general & limited' government.

Why do you ~want~ states to have the power to write unreasonable 'law' about such issues as capital punishment of the mentally ill & sexual 'sin' laws?

You clearly have not read and understood the Federalist. You clearly do not understand how and why the federal system of government was set up in the first place. And you have a strange idea of what checks and balances mean that bears no relation to American constitutional history.

I conclude that you are fixated on a handful of strange ideas about the Constitution, and are therefore incapable of rational debate. I will not reply to any future posts by you, whatever they say, because life is short and time is valuable.

John / Billybob

Post Script: As I've said before, given your strange ideas, you should not sully the name of Tom Paine by using it as your screen name. He was a trenchant, far-sighted philosopher; you are neither.