Posted on 05/26/2011 8:31:29 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
There is no appeal from their decisions. They can be, but never are, removed from office. Sometimes the consequences are awful, like the killing of millions of babies. So far, the people have accepted their authority.
I thought we were discussing constitutionality. But what you apparently meant was supporting unconstitutional SCOTUS decisions if they suit your fancy.
Got it.
“But I am not about to cede defeat before the battle begins!”
Neither am I.
But it’s always good to have a plan B in place. Otherwise, if you don’t get what you want, your only option is to get mad and break things. :-)
Indeed he was!
That doesn't mean that they and their agenda are correct, does it. And they should get away with destroying the Constitution because YOU agree with them? I think not.
I know you are a legend in your own mind, isn't worth a warm bucket of spit
More insults. Can't defend your POV without them? Think it will discourage those that disagree with you? Insults are a sign that you have no faith in what you're spouting and are trying to drive away disagreement. Either your opinions are worthy of defending or they are not. You seem to believe they are not.
It comes down to what is the alternative. If the globalist succeed in nominating the democrats favorite opponent (Romney), then when the criminal enterprise party’s sucker is elected he destroy what remains of this dying Republic. So the alternative is to show the bastards that an overwhelming number of We The People are not going to assume the prone position just for the rinos to step on us. The revolt against the demopublicans begins with ballots cast for third party candidates, cast by democrat and Republican voters who have had enough! They need to realize that We Teh People will not surrender until the three Bs have been tried ... ballots, bullets, then boxes.
Jan Mickelson: No that’s false logic. Your Church’s official position is pro-life.
Governor Mitt Romney: No, no-no, no no.
Well, Mickelson isn't quite right. Leaning "pro-life" is not the same thing as being pro-life...'Cause when you're only into leaning -- vs. standing -- you have no stability or balance. It's easy for somebody to come along and shove you in another direction.
And unfortunately, both Mitt Romney and the Mormon church he represents have been -- and continue to be-- wishy-washy re: the pre-born.
On the one hand, you would expect Mormons to be more staunchly pro-life than any religion around -- on the basis of their theology alone!
They believe pre-existent spirits are up there near Kolob -- awaiting to float down into a body in the womb.
Yet Romney derives some of his wishy-washiness direct from the Mormon church. Therefore when he says Mormon church leadership is "pro-choice," he is correct.
#1 Mormon leaders are "pro-choice" toward the disabled. (Basis of this conclusion: "The fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth." -- Lds "apostle" Dallin H. Oaks, "Weightier Matters," Speech at Brigham Young University, 1999-FEB-09, at: http://library.lds.org/) ... hmm...that's interesting...I didn't know perfect prophesy exists on a regular basis to determine exactly how long people will live!
#2 Mormon leaders are "pro-choice" toward an incest perpetrator's baby: The best way to protect an incestor perpetrator's evil is to cover-up by destroying "evidence" in the womb. And the Mormon church serves as a mighty accomplice for incest perps!
#3 Mormon leaders are "pro-choice" toward pre-born babes who don't even threaten the life of their mom. The 1983 official Mormon handbook says "only exceptions are...in the opinion of competent medical counsel, the life or health of the woman is in jeopardy..." (Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_abor.htm) The Mormon church goes beyond just covering "life of the mother..." Health of the mother can mean ANYTHING!
#4 Mormon leaders are "pro-choice" toward pre-born babies being overseen by abortionists. It's been for more than the past decade where 90% of the abortions are not done in OB-GYN offices or hospitals; nope...abortion clinics by full-time abortionists. The Mormon "prophet" in '83 didn't foresee this increased development.
#5 Mormon leaders are "pro-choice" toward pre-born babies however often the Mormon god wants to be "pro-choice" toward them! IOW, ANYTIME a Mormon girl or woman gets "spiritual confirmation" via "prayer" that the Mormon god has "OK'd" the dismemberment of a pre-born baby, then off to the abortion clinic they can go!
“Who are you to decide what FR tolerates?”
Last I checked, it was his site. You are the guest here, as am I. I’ve seen a lot of zots in my day. If I were Mr. Robinson, you would already be gone.
**************************************
Well said.
Still, he managed to turn a tactical defeat into a strategic victory by convincing the Union commanders that he had more men than he actually had, thus prevented the transfer of forces from the Valley to reinforce the Peninsula Campaign, where they would have swept down on the Confederates' flank and rear and almost surely overwhelmed them.
Oh no. We should all follow what you think and totally disregard the Supreme Court. After all, you have demonstrated your deep knowledge of Constitutional history right here on this thread. Yeah, that's the ticket, ignore the Supreme Court because of some anonymous poster on a web forum.
Grow up.
I sent you a private message, don’t like to air details of dirty laundry on the board.
Fair enough. Let’s work like heck to beat him in the primaries!
I don’t know if you followed back the thread to see what led to my comment about alternatives, but mine was to invest our efforts into state and congressional (meaning both houses) races.
We’re making significant inroads at the state level especially, and since federalism is one of the key concepts behind our conservative constitutionalism, it makes at least as much sense (IMO) to work toward building the power of the states relative to the feds as it does to work in the other direction.
“...until the three Bs have been tried ... ballots, bullets, then boxes.”
Boxes? I’m not sure what you mean here.
LJ's Post 774 : BTW the constitution doesn’t forbid a State to have a state religion if it wants to.
You in Post 790: Maybe you want to read "Everson v. Board of Education".
You are insisting that the SCOTUS trumps the Constitution. Liberal activist judges are a problem and so are those that support them.
I hear you. Thank you.
*************************************
It's your contention that the Supreme Court cannot err?
I will be put into a box in the ground before I will live under outright socialism and commie slugs like now infest the White Hut.
There’s a judge or former judge, Judge Robert H. Dierker,Jr., who wrote an excellent book,”The Tyranny of Tolerance”,who writes about his experience of history of unconstitutional judicial tyranny. Excellent read.
And of course, Mark Levin’s “Men in Black”, does a great job.
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.