Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer (D) and Lt. Governor John Bohlinger (R) voiced opposition to the Supreme Court decision issued Monday striking down limits on corporate...
By MARK SHERMAN, ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court struck down key provisions of Arizona's crackdown on immigrants Monday but said a much-debated portion...
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Monday delivered a split decision in the Obama administration's challenge to Arizona's aggressive immigration law, striking multiple provisions but...
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Monday abolished the imposition of mandatory sentences of life without parole for all juveniles convicted of murder. Justice Elena...
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday struck down Montana's century-old limits on corporate political spending, putting an end to the state's resistance to...
This is because Republicans only like activist courts when it rules in what they believe in. I.E. Bush v. Gore, Citizens United, Health Care. Either way, we all will still hear the crying and complaining from this group of people. It never ends.
KChief: This is because Republicans only like activist courts when it
Can you even imagine a united nation with fifty differing immigration laws?
Scalia has shown his distaste for the constitution before, but this is pathetic.
demisfine: Can you even imagine a united nation with fifty differing
"Can you even imagine a united nation with fifty differing immigration laws?"
You would have a point if AZ's law was different than the feds, but it's not.
Then again, we have 50 different driving laws, 50 different state police organizations, 50 different marriage laws, 50 different income taxes & sales taxes, etc.
That is one of the nice things about the 50 states; If you don't like the way they do things where you are, move one that makes you happy. I chose Florida because it doesn't snow much and their are no state income taxes.
Mover: "Can you even imagine a united nation with fifty differing
In legal theory discussions the concepts of "originalism" and "strict constructionism" mean one thing, but in practice "originalism" and "strict constructionism" more often than not are pseudo-intellectual attempts to turn the Constitution into the Bible: A document written by an infallible being whose will only a certain elite group can divine, which they will then translate into laws and rules that you must obey and the rich can ignore.
Fulcanelli: In legal theory discussions the concepts of "originalism" and "strict
" in practice "originalism" and "strict constructionism" more often than not are pseudo-intellectual attempts to turn the Constitution into the Bible: A document written by an infallible being whose will only a certain elite group can divine, which they will then translate into laws and rules that you must obey and the rich can ignore."
Well, no. They do not try to turn it into a Bible. Strict constructionists know that there is a mechanism for correcting it. But most leftists (progressives & President "Constitutional Scholar" Obama) don't know or understand that part and believe they can change the meaning of words and then do what they want. That's like signing for a car loan and having the bank's board of directors determine that 1.4% per month per year really and they change the maning of the word year to mean 13 months, so you must pay more.
Mover: " in practice "originalism" and "strict constructionism" more often than
The constitution cannot be a set document. Times change and so do social issues. The constitution needs to be used as a piece that is always evolving and becoming better. This is how great nations stay great and companies stay profitable. If each business did not change with the times, there would be nothing left of them.
KChief: The constitution cannot be a set document. Times change and
"GOP must be defeated this november to keep them from further stacking the supreme court or citizens united will look liberal compared what will come."
Yeah, I'm with you brother. We won't want any of that nasty 'enforcing the law' stuff. We can pick and choose which laws to enforce and and which ones we don't like.
Mover: "GOP must be defeated this november to keep them from
Just what we need to push us that last step or 2 into another Civil War. Just as a reminder, the first one is still the bloodiest war America has ever fought.
Grada3784: Just what we need to push us that last step
I could write a four-line BASIC program on my old 8-bit Atari to do what Thomas does.
Scalia has shown his distaste for the constitution before, but this is pathetic.
You would have a point if AZ's law was different than the feds, but it's not.
Then again, we have 50 different driving laws, 50 different state police organizations, 50 different marriage laws, 50 different income taxes & sales taxes, etc.
That is one of the nice things about the 50 states; If you don't like the way they do things where you are, move one that makes you happy. I chose Florida because it doesn't snow much and their are no state income taxes.
Well, no. They do not try to turn it into a Bible. Strict constructionists know that there is a mechanism for correcting it. But most leftists (progressives & President "Constitutional Scholar" Obama) don't know or understand that part and believe they can change the meaning of words and then do what they want. That's like signing for a car loan and having the bank's board of directors determine that 1.4% per month per year really and they change the maning of the word year to mean 13 months, so you must pay more.
Draw one on your computer screen. It will cheer you up.
Hey! You're right! HA HA a kitty!
Yeah, I'm with you brother. We won't want any of that nasty 'enforcing the law' stuff. We can pick and choose which laws to enforce and and which ones we don't like.
People who think they're all radical amuse me.
Scalia is Italian, although none of us would claim him.
Both were on display Monday.
The Masters give conflicting orders because Profits have conflicting needs.