Skip to comments.
Supreme Court opinions not private enough
WND ^
| Wednesday, December 03, 2003
| Ann Coulter
Posted on 12/03/2003 3:53:44 PM PST by perfect stranger
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-66 next last
To: perfect stranger
The Executive Branch needs to summarily execute the Judicial Branch. Seriously, who would complain, the Legislative Branch?
To: perfect stranger
At some point, something's got to give.
To: perfect stranger
Bravo Ann!
4
posted on
12/03/2003 4:07:10 PM PST
by
visualops
(FREEPER STUFF RULES! GO TO 0CENTS.COM AND SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC!!)
To: Agnes Heep
"At some point, something's got to give."I suspect that it will happen sooner, than later.
To: perfect stranger
Ann Coulter Bump!
6
posted on
12/03/2003 4:08:47 PM PST
by
Rummyfan
To: perfect stranger
"The court's opinion declared that it was calling "the contending sides of a national controversy to end their national division by accepting a common mandate rooted in the Constitution." Eight months later, the first abortion doctor was killed."Yeah, the US Supreme Court also wanted people to just accept slavery after the Dred-Scott decision. Piss up a rope, you black-robed bastards.
To: perfect stranger
There may be practical difficulties with the president and the states ignoring the court's abortion rulings though there's nothing unlawful about following the Constitution and I for one would love to see it. But there is absolutely no excuse for the Massachusetts legislature jumping when Massachusetts Supreme Court Chief Justice Margaret Marshall says "jump."
Bump, Bump, Bump!!!
8
posted on
12/03/2003 4:19:04 PM PST
by
Rummyfan
To: perfect stranger
Granted, one can imagine how a woman married to the likes of Anthony Lewis might long for the sanctuary of a same-sex union. But that's no reason to foist it on Massachusetts.
ROTFLMAO!!!!!
9
posted on
12/03/2003 4:20:28 PM PST
by
Rummyfan
To: perfect stranger
The court's opinion declared that it was calling "the contending sides of a national controversy to end their national division by accepting a common mandate rooted in the Constitution." Eight months later, the first abortion doctor was killed. I suspect this could (and will) be interpreted as an endorsement of clinic violence. But I think the point is an obvious one that has escaped the PC-thinkers: When you give people no opportunit whatever to influence the political system under which they live, it is hardly surprising that some of them try to take the law into their own hands. That doesn't make their behavior right, but it certainly explains it. And it is the likely end of other forms of judicial tyranny as well.
To: perfect stranger
I been sayin. The Massachusetts legislature can't be ordered to do
anything by the state supreme court. Don't let the legislators off when they try to use that order as an excuse.
11
posted on
12/03/2003 4:56:49 PM PST
by
William Terrell
(Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
To: perfect stranger
The only thing I would add to this cogent article is that I believe that the number of dead babies caused by Roe v. Wade has climbed from 30 million to around 42 million. And counting.
12
posted on
12/03/2003 4:57:04 PM PST
by
Cicero
(Marcus Tullius)
To: madprof98
This judicial supremacy thing is one wicked Pandora's Box. Yow!
To: William Terrell
Don't let the legislators off...My rep recommended I write to the SJC and express my displeasure. Thanks a lot, Pat! (/sarcasm off)
To: perfect stranger; yall
Everyone knew the decision in Roe v. Wade was a joke.
The decision hinged on the convenient notion of "privacy," which, oddly enough, still fails to protect my right to manufacture methamphetamine,
saw off shotgun barrels
or euthanize the elderly, privately or otherwise.
-AnnC-
Hmmm, I've always been of the opinion that it was perfectly Constitutional to make mind altering substances [like booze], for my private use.
[Granted, winemaking can be 'regulated', -- if I sell it]
The same goes for making a 'short' shotgun for home use. If it never leaves my house, what's the harm to society?
Who gave the government the power to 'regulate' the length of shotgun barrels, or make home remedies?
Naturally, "euthanizing the elderly, privately or otherwise", is murder, a criminal act. --- Just as is killing a viable baby..
-- But then Ann has never let a good line stand in her way of making what she sees as a witty point.
She is getting to be the ~joke~ , by trying to claim the government can prohibit guns, drugs, booze, or sexual privacy by simple decree.
Prohibitionism is not conservatism, Ann, -- its authoritarianism.
15
posted on
12/03/2003 5:55:16 PM PST
by
tpaine
(I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but FRs flying monkey squad brings out the Rickenbacker in me.)
To: tpaine
Ann is pointing out the the hypocripsy of the court in saying one has a right to "privacy" but only when it comes to abortion. The court believes we don't have a right to privacy when it comes to sawed-off shotguns, drugs, etc.
In no way does Ann give an opinion as to wether she believes these activities are constitutional.
16
posted on
12/03/2003 6:06:46 PM PST
by
free me
To: tpaine
You're the joke Paine. A one joke johnny who actually believes that sodomy is an inalienable right worthy of Constitutional protection but believes that the right to life is simply a tenth amendment issue.
But what's worse is the indignity you express when the same morons fudge on the second amendment. Live by judicial activism, die by judicial activism.
17
posted on
12/03/2003 6:13:44 PM PST
by
jwalsh07
To: perfect stranger; GatorGirl; maryz; *Catholic_list; afraidfortherepublic; Antoninus; Aquinasfan; ...
Ping.
18
posted on
12/03/2003 6:18:02 PM PST
by
narses
("The do-it-yourself Mass is ended. Go in peace" Francis Cardinal Arinze of Nigeria)
To: narses
Thanks for the ping.
Which ping list am I on now?
19
posted on
12/03/2003 6:26:17 PM PST
by
perfect stranger
(No tag line today. Tag line yesterday, tag line tomorrow, but no tag line today.)
To: perfect stranger
BUMP
20
posted on
12/03/2003 6:33:09 PM PST
by
nickcarraway
(www.terrisfight.org)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-66 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson