Posted on 06/27/2011 7:44:41 AM PDT by Hojczyk
No details yet
That is what the Supreme Court just did.
Nice try, though.
You are a typical liberal.
So there you go spouting nonsense again. You want to take away the People’s right to representation based upon your hippy libertarian views but then cry about being called a dictator. Pathetic.
You are what you are Laz. You support dictatorship from the Courts.
No they didn’t. You are delusional. They simply ignored the Constitution and made their personal opinions law.
Nice try though.
Hey. Improvement. Not once did you call me a LIBERTARIAN, ANARCHIST, DICTATOR, HIPPY, OR NAZI. Good job!
Well, here: Ths SCOTUS has for a long time decided the Constitutionality of all manners of populace-popular legislation. Otherwise, states might still have slaves; voting poll taxes might still be in place; firearms might still be banned in DC and Chicago; and so on.
Your heros in black robes laz. You just love when they take away rights from the People and impose their personal judgements on us all. Especially when it suits your hippy libertarian fascist philosophy.
Well, it lasted for one post. Oh well. Returning fire:
So there you go spouting nonsense again. You want to take away the Peoples right to Constitutional Protections based upon your hippy libertarian views that courts cannot rule on the Constitutionality of local law, but then cry about being called a dictator. Pathetic.
You are what YOU are, BigIf. You support dictatorship from the Masses.
Your heros in voting booths, BigIf. You just love when they take away Constitutional Protections from the People and impose their tyranny-of-the-Masses on us all. Especially when it suits your hippy libertarian fascist philosophy.
And what Constitutional protection was taken away laz?? The childrens right to pornography? The kids right to drugs? Oh that is right you think that they have a right to violent video games. Can you show me where that is in your Constitution?
With my argument we ALL have EQUAL rights to representation. Laws can be made and then changed. Representatives could be voted in or out. It is by your argument whereas no one now has a right to representation on this issue due to a dictate by the Court. It is you Laz who is a hippy libertarian fascist dictator.
We have a difference of opinion on where the bar is set. And because you have a different opinion than me, you are a hippy libertarian fascist dictator.
Well, then, there's ABSOLUTELY no need for ANY Supreme Court! Don't like Slavery? Just vote the bast'ds out! Change the laws later!
Spoken like a true hippy libertarian fascist dictator.
So first you dont answer as to what Constitutional protection was taken away but then you accuse me of wanting them all taken away. Typical ridiculous answer from you Laz.
All you care about is that the Court took a position popular with libertarian hippy types who crave anarchy to be dictated by the whims of elites in black robes and for the People to have no rights to representation.
No we do not have a difference of opinion as to where any bar is set. We have a difference opinion about the rights of the People. You believe that they have no right to representation and that judges rule over them and I believe that we ALL have an EQUAL right to representation on issues.
Hey, just giving you a taste of your own medicine, BigIf. Remember, anyone who doesn't agree with exactly your point of view is a hippy libertarian fascist dictator.
All you care about is that the Court took a position popular with libertarian hippy types who crave anarchy to be dictated by the whims of elites in black robes and for the People to have no rights to representation.
Tell ya God's honest truth, I could care less about this issue. But when I see a nutbag swinging his fish wildly around the room, calling everyone who disagrees with his very particular view, a hippy libertarian fascist dictator, it makes me take notice. Then I start mocking them for the jerk that they are.
We do! We do have a difference of opinion about the rights of the people! You believe that any popular vote triumphs the Constitution, and I believe that the Constitution triumphs any popular vote!
So you set up a false premise that I wildly called people names and that you really dont care about the issue but just wanted to take down the name caller.
You really are an idiot. Half the stuff you are claiming I said are simply not true. I havent used the term Nazi once in this discussion but yet that doesnt stop you from making up such a claim.
But go ahead and think of yourself as taking on the name caller. You add nothing to the discussion at all but so what. You have already said that you dont really care about the issue.
Again Laz you seem to just want to make up your own straw man arguments. I have never said that the popular vote triumphs over the Constitution. I asked you what Constitutional protection was taken away and you couldnt answer. I have clearly already stated that there was nothing un-Constitutional about this law.
Considering that I do not call anyone names in the first two links I see no reason to go any further checking your links.
Saying that someone is promoting dictatorship is not calling them a name, Laz. I know though that you have comprehension issues so I you cant help getting things wrong.
if the Moslems in Dearborn, Michigan pass a law that says that no woman can drive a car in the city, or walk the street unless dressed in a burka, would that be constitutional?
The majority opinion (by Scalia) holds that limits on the First Amendment are limited to the ones that existed when the Amendment was enacted 9an original intent argument). There were laws against obscenity in 1789, but none against violence in literature, so the First Amendment protects violent speech more than sexually explicit speech.
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.