Skip to comments.
Justice Breyer: U. S. Constitution should be subordinated to international will
WorldNetDaily ^
| July 7, 2003
Posted on 07/07/2003 7:00:07 AM PDT by mrobison
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220, 221-240, 241-260 ... 581-582 next last
To: AntiGuv
OK, thanks for the clarification.
To: SkyPilot
Nope. I noticed that before on one of the SCOTUS groups photos.
Expect the next words out of her mouth to be "I'll swallow your soul!"
222
posted on
07/07/2003 9:54:03 AM PDT
by
Dead Corpse
(For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
To: mrobison
IMPEACH THE IDIOT.
Let him hold court with an outhouse full of mosquitoes in the deep hinterlands of Alaska.
Rather Siberia. Alaska doesn't deserve the insult.
223
posted on
07/07/2003 9:54:07 AM PDT
by
Quix
(LIVE THREAD NOW STARTED. UFO special Tues eve & share opinions)
To: Quix
Or, we could tie him up, then smear his ears with jelly and lay him in front of an anthill...
To: ought-six
Yes, to the will, subordinate everything to the willNietschze?
225
posted on
07/07/2003 9:56:42 AM PDT
by
ninenot
(Joe McCarthy was RIGHT, but Drank Too Much)
To: ninenot
Charles Manson
To: jwalsh07
You probably could offer your opinion without dissing people, but why change a mind when you can alienate someone instead?
227
posted on
07/07/2003 9:57:19 AM PDT
by
Lazamataz
(PROUDLY POSTING WITHOUT READING THE ARTICLE SINCE 1999!)
To: Dead Corpse
"I'll swallow your soul!" We need Ash on the SCOTUS!
![](http://home.swipnet.se/~w-12947/Gfx/AoD/armydk37.jpg)
"Allright you primitive screwheads! Listen up!!! THIS is my BOOM STICK!"
To: Constitutionalist Conservative
U.S. Constitution, the oldest governing document in use in the world today The constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is the oldest governing document on earth.
Yeah, but is it still in use? :-)
From some of the neo-con rambling around here, one might question if the U.S. Constitution is still in use.
229
posted on
07/07/2003 9:59:31 AM PDT
by
BureaucratusMaximus
(if we're not going to act like a constitutional republic...lets be the best empire we can be...)
To: PhiKapMom
In 1994, everyone was saying that we couldn't take the House and Senate -- well some people felt differently and we did.
Did we retake the House and Senate by advocating more spending, more government entitlements, more meddling in health care, and a larger federal bureaucracy?
If you see the word "socialist" with President Bush, you can take it to the bank that they come from one of two camps -- DNC/Dean/Clinton or Buchanan -- throw a dart -- not much difference in any of them.
This is just silly demonization.
I'm in neither camp, and I'll say flat out that the best face that can be put President Bush's prescription drug entitlement racket is that it gives us a socialist program now in return for a pipe dream of privatization later.
The rationalizations for every excuse given by folks who defend this President's intergenerational swindle of a vote-buying scheme fall short. Privatizing after encouraging more dependency is illogical. The forces against privatization will only grow stronger if an unearned prescription drug subsidy is implemented, because the subsidy itself buys votes against privatization.
To: jwalsh07
No evidence here of deferring to European sensibilities, none at all. Sheesh. What he did was look to Europe to build his case that Western society's taboo against sodomy had changed. He didn't say the SCOTUS is obliged to follow the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights.
As Scalia said Breyer has, in cases where public mood matters, given some weight to the public moods of other nations. I don't like it, although I see where he's going if he's just responding to claims about the opinion of Western society, but it's very different from what the headline says he said.
231
posted on
07/07/2003 10:03:36 AM PDT
by
MattAMiller
(Down with the Mullahs! Peace, freedom, and prosperity for Iran.)
To: mrobison
Stephen G. Breyer
BiographyPresident Clinton's second nomination to the Supreme Court is a man of difficult descriptions. Contradictory in many ways, Stephen Gerald Breyer defied simple classification, as a man and as a judge.
232
posted on
07/07/2003 10:05:09 AM PDT
by
swampfx
To: mrobison
You realize that the framers intended those words to maintain constant values, but values that would change in their application as society changed." Philosophy of Language, if there is such a thing. Words are taken as subject, and then are predicated. The same word can have any number of predicates, that is, the word does not contain its function. Another odd twist is that words can have multiple meanings--especially older words that have been in use for a time. We constantly add new words to the language, but we also add meanings to existing words, and not just by new functions, but to the word itself. It would be a mistake, most unscholarly, to interpret the Constitution by using new meanings or predicates that didn't exist when the Constitution was adopted.
233
posted on
07/07/2003 10:05:45 AM PDT
by
RightWhale
(gazing at shadows)
To: smith288
"...Breyer should be impeached post haste."
I heartily agree. By his own words, he violated his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, FOREIGN and domestic. Those who want to subordinate or eliminate the Constitution are, by definition, enemies of it. There should be no place on our federal courts for such people.
BESIDES, IMPEACHING BREYER AND REMINDING THE COURT FROM WHOM THEY DERIVE THEIR POWERS WOULD BE A HEALTHY DEVELOPMENT. WE SHOULD BEGIN AGITATING FOR HIS IMPEACHMENT IMMEDIATELY AND SERIOUSLY.
234
posted on
07/07/2003 10:07:54 AM PDT
by
Wolfstar
(If we don't re-elect GWB — a truly great President — we're NUTS!)
To: mrobison
Breyer.....
He may act like an idiot and talk like an idiot, but he really is an idiot!
Isn't he sworn to uphold the United States Constitution and not the sentiments of the 'world'?
To: laconic
Its the same old crap from Breyer and his twin Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg. Could someone tell me WHY the Republicans didn't filibuster these two world federalist liberals appointed by clinton? -- instead I remember even conservatives in the Senate falling over each other in praising them.Some give the reason as a more civil body in the past. Of course that is all nice & fuzzy but the real reason is the internet & the wise sheeple have caught on to their game. The wise understand that Congress is virtually all bought & paid for by the elites/transnationalist. Yep, the same ones that bomblasted Buchanan & Nader or anyone else who doesn't bow to their whims. I called it the "good old boy network" back then. Today it's the "Two-Party Cartel".
236
posted on
07/07/2003 10:09:15 AM PDT
by
Digger
Any socialistic programs implemented by Bush and the Republican Congress will be dwarfted by what the Democrats do when they take back the White House and the Congress. We can vote in Republicans who will undo much of that, but there are no Democrats we can vote for who will ever undo any of it.
237
posted on
07/07/2003 10:10:24 AM PDT
by
Consort
To: ninenot; PhiKapMom
It's what we call democracy, babe: voting the bums out!
Yep don't you just love that 'upstanding moral true conservative' that we got as a replacement? It was a very good swap, don'tcha think? I'm sure you'll take a Clinton every time.... those 'true conservatives' you gotta love them.....
238
posted on
07/07/2003 10:10:44 AM PDT
by
deport
(When ridin' ahead of the herd, take a look back every now and then to make sure it's still there))
To: mrobison
Probably ants have better taste.
239
posted on
07/07/2003 10:11:04 AM PDT
by
Quix
(LIVE THREAD NOW STARTED. UFO special Tues eve & share opinions)
To: jwalsh07
To be sure, you make an excellent point, but I just wanted to make clear that my past comments have not been intended to address the question of motivation but simply legal context. The current Supreme Court is far too inscrutable for me to figure out what, precisely, it's thinking in the course of most decisions. If they actually followed some consistent application of Constitutional law, then they would be far more predictable...
I also think it's highly problematic that commentators so frequently have to say things like: 'We'll just have to see how the Court applies this ruling toward future rulings.' In my view, proper Supreme Court rulings should lend themselves to such effortless interpretation that one could easily predict their future application. This Court's novel approach of patterning its jurisprudence to the evolvement of societal norms is quite unstable, to say the least..
240
posted on
07/07/2003 10:11:53 AM PDT
by
AntiGuv
(™)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220, 221-240, 241-260 ... 581-582 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