Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/13/09 01:00 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: Link

Ok, slight hyperbole, but this is ridiculous.

As a supreme court judge its her duty to uphold the constitution *not* to undermine it and its significance by saying the states can ignore it on a controversial issue.

So yeah...

Am i the only person who thinks that a supreme court judge telling the states to ignore the constitution when it's her job to uphold it is retarded?

It is indeed retarded.

But here, let me help you live by stabbing a knife into your heart. It makes perfect sense because I am a supreme court judge - therefore, my argument is valid. I'll finish off by saying we should argue more about smoking lettuce and the best jacuzzis on C-SPAN, because that kind of stuff is worth having a political argument over. So have at it.

Shes a Liberal and can't forget her bias and have a fair court of law. She doens't like guns so as a judge she thinks she can over rule the foundation of the country, because as we are all aware, she is above the law.

At 7/16/09 08:16 AM, tiskewl wrote: Shes a Liberal and can't forget her bias and have a fair court of law. She doens't like guns so as a judge she thinks she can over rule the foundation of the country, because as we are all aware, she is above the law.

And obviously, every liberal will have the same bias and agree with her completely, because everyone knows that all liberals believe in gun control and affirmative action and everything else Sotomayor has stated her opinion on, because they're liberals and always trying to legislate from the bench, instead of judging by the true meaning of the Constitution like they're supposed to.

Did I mention I'm a liberal who disagrees with her?

At 7/16/09 09:06 PM, Dawnslayer wrote: Did I mention I'm a liberal who disagrees with her?

Are you sure you're a liberal then? Cuz being a liberal kind of is defined by having those views. I didn't mean to say that all liberal judges couldn't foget their bias in the courtroom, I just meant that THIS PARTICULAR ONE CAN'T.

I think the Supreme Court needs more mexican vaginas.

At 7/17/09 05:45 AM, tiskewl wrote:

At 7/16/09 09:06 PM, Dawnslayer wrote: Did I mention I'm a liberal who disagrees with her?

Are you sure you're a liberal then? Cuz being a liberal kind of is defined by having those views.

I'm not a hardcore liberal, but I am north and left of center. Gun control? Sure, against criminals; but everyday citizens have a right to defend themselves by the necessary means, and may the day never come that the Joneses have need of an assault rifle. Affirmative action? I think it lowers our standards in the workforce. What we should be doing is giving minorities and the disadvantaged a proper education as children, so they can meet the challenge of higher standards.

So no, I'm not your standard cookie-cutter liberal. But I agree with liberals far more often than I agree with conservatives.

I didn't mean to say that all liberal judges couldn't foget their bias in the courtroom, I just meant that THIS PARTICULAR ONE CAN'T.

Understood and duly noted. In fact, the current information is leading me to agree with you. Then again, Roe v. Wade was ruled by a justice who was expected to oppose it. We'll see what the future holds, but in the meantime, all we can do is send our senator a letter and hope our message gets across. (Speaking of which, I think I'll check up on my senators and see what they're thinking on the matter.)

The "living consitution" is bs. It was written the way it was for a reason.

Ok so I was thinking today on the while "states don't have to uphold the 2nd amendment deal.

If the states don't have to uphold the constitution, then how come many state laws are deemed unconstitutional by a federal court and struck down? like so.

Anyone care to figure this one out? if states don't have to follow the 2nd amendment, why must they follow any amendment?

At 7/13/09 01:52 PM, Proteas wrote: But the Federal Government is above the state in terms of legislative power. If the Federal Government isn't allowed to do it, what right does the state have to do it?

On certain issues. But except for a few select things, they are not.

While it is ignored, if the state and federal laws ever conflict, unless the Constitution gives specific jurisdiction to the feds...the state is right