Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: SCOTUS Strikes Voting Rights Act « previous next »
Page: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17699
Offline
#180 : July 23, 2013, 10:54:11 PM

Thanks for re-posting it. It makes you look even more foolish the second time.  :) ;) :D ;D >:( :( :o 8) ??? ::) :P :-[ :-X :-\ :-* :'(

lol

1. you carry on a conversation with yourself
2. I say you carry on a conversation with yourself
3. you deny it (as if humans cant read-lol)
I4. I quote you carrying on a conversation with yourself

yeah . . . I am the one that looks foolish . . ???

btw, you could carry on that conversation with yourself, but not find a quote where you raised judicial review before this case, right? You could carry on that conversation with yourself but not answer that simple question I threw out pages ago, right?

I'm not talking to you. You should stop carrying on a conversation with yourself.

but I really want to read your views on Marbury

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
#181 : July 23, 2013, 11:08:27 PM

Thanks for re-posting it. It makes you look even more foolish the second time.  :) ;) :D ;D >:( :( :o 8) ??? ::) :P :-[ :-X :-\ :-* :'(

lol

1. you carry on a conversation with yourself
2. I say you carry on a conversation with yourself
3. you deny it (as if humans cant read-lol)
I4. I quote you carrying on a conversation with yourself

yeah . . . I am the one that looks foolish . . ???

btw, you could carry on that conversation with yourself, but not find a quote where you raised judicial review before this case, right? You could carry on that conversation with yourself but not answer that simple question I threw out pages ago, right?

I'm not talking to you. You should stop carrying on a conversation with yourself.

but I really want to read your views on Marbury

Oh, you mean that case that Thomas Jefferson was mad that he lost (even though he won it), and misplaced that anger by attacking the principle of SCOTUS having judicial review for the remainder of his days, even though he wasn't really opposed to it, since he had never spoke out about it before? Is that the case you are referring to?


Biggs3535

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 31381
Online
#182 : July 24, 2013, 09:09:57 AM

If all else fails, argue with yourself .... Lol

I suppose you would consider quoting your posts responding to spartan and JG? and picking them apart is arguing with myself. Just because you refuse to engage me directly in a meaningful discussion doesn't mean that I can't still expose your idiocy on the issue.

Lmao. You might want to seek professional help.

Your ego prevents you from simply not responding. He....can't....help....it!

You're going with ego?  I think the good Counselor is just extremely lame and a good bit delusional.


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17699
Offline
#183 : July 24, 2013, 09:39:13 AM

If all else fails, argue with yourself .... Lol

I suppose you would consider quoting your posts responding to spartan and JG? and picking them apart is arguing with myself. Just because you refuse to engage me directly in a meaningful discussion doesn't mean that I can't still expose your idiocy on the issue.

Lmao. You might want to seek professional help.

Your ego prevents you from simply not responding. He....can't....help....it!

You're going with ego?  I think the good Counselor is just extremely lame and a good bit delusional.




Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 15515
Online
#184 : July 24, 2013, 10:39:30 AM

I agree with the comrade on this subject , but Biggs' butthurt over Vince is so painfully obvious it laughable.

What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17699
Offline
#185 : July 24, 2013, 10:44:23 AM

I agree with the comrade on this subject , but Biggs' butthurt over Vince is so painfully obvious it laughable.


lmao . . . .funny thing is that he steps on himself so much he makes it easy  . . .  remember that last one, on the Red Board . . . caught freaking editing out part of my comment . . .  he ran away from that thread as fast as he could!! ROFLMAO


even funnier is that he is the one that apparently cant let it go, he keeps coming back . . . I keep waiting for him to pull out the "you are my puppet" nonsense . .  bwahhahahaha


poor little Scarecrow

Biggs3535

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 31381
Online
#186 : July 24, 2013, 11:00:16 AM

Deloris and Vinny are platinum members on the Butthurt Express.  Thanks for your continued patronage.


Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 15515
Online
#187 : July 24, 2013, 11:07:53 AM

Then , after I laughed at him publically after that PFF gaff , he bumps a thread that hadn't been active since Christmas Eve in a weak attempt to get back at me . LOL

He truly is a sad little scarecrow. I'll bet he doesn't even know what judicial review even is , much less have an opinion. Why is here right now ? 

What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17699
Offline
#188 : July 24, 2013, 11:20:49 AM

Then , after I laughed at him publically after that PFF gaff , he bumps a thread that hadn't been active since Christmas Eve in a weak attempt to get back at me . LOL

He truly is a sad little scarecrow. I'll bet he doesn't even know what judicial review even is , much less have an opinion. Why is here right now ?

to the bold . . .  "he don't know"



By the way, Buggsy went on the Insider Board and complained about the search feature not working . . .  . seems he is lost without the silly little thread bumps like the one you mention . . . ROFLMAO

Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 15515
Online
#189 : July 24, 2013, 11:29:59 AM

Everyone else who came to this thread did so to express an opinion they have on judicial review. Biggs came to try and pile on Vince .

Who's butthurt again ?

What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           

Biggs3535

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 31381
Online
#190 : July 24, 2013, 11:34:12 AM

Look at the two Princesses comparing Butthurt stories about Big Bad Biggs3535.  Heartwarming. 

The support group meets every third Thursday at 6:00 pm.  You both are welcome.


John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
#191 : July 24, 2013, 11:41:34 AM

Now, did you want to take up my challenge? Or, just explain what your view is on judicial review?


My view on Judicial Review is hazy-murky. I am still debating it with myself.

On one hand, it is a necessary evil. Because anything can be interpreted multiple ways including the Constitution, we need a final and ultimate single interpretation.

On the other hand, there is no way for the people or the other 2 branches to limit what and how SCOTUS interprets or what it bases its interpretation on. If 5 of the justices just start making wacky agenda based decisions, there is no way to throw them out, unelect them, etc.

So there does need to be a means to review congressional statutes and executive orders to prevent clearly unconstitutional acts, BUT we also don't want the court to have the power to throw out every act a congress or POTUS does. The problem with judicial review as it now stands; is that it is dependent on our faith that the justices will exercise a proper degree of self-restraint.


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17699
Offline
#192 : July 24, 2013, 11:51:21 AM

Now, did you want to take up my challenge? Or, just explain what your view is on judicial review?


My view on Judicial Review is hazy-murky. I am still debating it with myself.

On one hand, it is a necessary evil. Because anything can be interpreted multiple ways including the Constitution, we need a final and ultimate single interpretation.

On the other hand, there is no way for the people or the other 2 branches to limit what and how SCOTUS interprets or what it bases its interpretation on. If 5 of the justices just start making wacky agenda based decisions, there is no way to throw them out, unelect them, etc.

So there does need to be a means to review congressional statutes and executive orders to prevent clearly unconstitutional acts, BUT we also don't want the court to have the power to throw out every act a congress or POTUS does. The problem with judicial review as it now stands; is that it is dependent on our faith that the justices will exercise a proper degree of self-restraint.

Very interesting post, thanks. I think you have a reasonable take. I can add one thing later

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17699
Offline
#193 : July 24, 2013, 11:58:46 AM

Look at the two Princesses comparing Butthurt stories about Big Bad Biggs3535.  Heartwarming. 

The support group meets every third Thursday at 6:00 pm.  You both are welcome.

I kid you with the Scarecrow stuff but that comment proves you really are as dumb as your posts make you seem. Dolo just summed you up perfectly and you're not actually able to formulate a response beyond your usual nonsense.

Wow, small wonder you haven't been suspended more Meat.

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17699
Offline
#194 : July 24, 2013, 12:54:01 PM

My view on Judicial Review is hazy-murky. I am still debating it with myself.

On one hand, it is a necessary evil. Because anything can be interpreted multiple ways including the Constitution, we need a final and ultimate single interpretation.

True, and the point of my earlier Brown v. Board hypothetical.  Also, much better having someone like Justic Kennedy doing the very limited job of interpreting what the Constitution means then an elected official. The Constitution and the jurisprudence that flows from it premised on the notion that the Constitution is and should be difficult to change.  The Constitution can be amended, but it takes a true commitment by the citizens.  If the "ultimate single interpretation" was left to political-types the Constitution would be unrecgnizable by now.

On the other hand, there is no way for the people or the other 2 branches to limit what and how SCOTUS interprets or what it bases its interpretation on. If 5 of the justices just start making wacky agenda based decisions, there is no way to throw them out, unelect them, etc.

I understand where you are coming from, but respectfully disagree.  First, most Constitutional challenges actually occur in lower courts directly controlled by Congress. Second, Congress controls who becomes a justice and retain the power of impeachment (btw, people who complain that SCOTUS is political are proving why SCOTUS should interpret the Constitution over political types. If SCOTUS is political it is because political types CHOSE to install less than moderate judges). Third, there is nothing in the Constitution that says Congress has to follow the SCOTUS.  Congress chooses to so that people retain faith in their government , but they do not have to. If SCOTUS did something outrageous, Congress could simply go around them.  Fourth, this discussion has to start with an understanding of how limited SCOTUS's role is anyway. SCOTUS routinely declines cases and routinely defers to Congress, SCOTUS is not a legislative body.

The problem with judicial review as it now stands; is that it is dependent on our faith that the justices will exercise a proper degree of self-restraint.

The entire government is dependent on faith.  As I mentioned before, Congress could ignore SCOTUS so we are depending on faith that they will "exercise a proper degree of self restraint" too.  The thing is, who is more likely to show "a proper degree of self restraint,"  Justice Kennedy or CBW?  In other words, the decision making about what is and is not Constitutional should be left in the hands of the least political branch of government. SCOTUS is far from perfect BUT even with Congress often self-servingly nominating judges with strong political views, SCOTUS often makes sober, independent decisions. There are examples to the contrary of course, SCOTUS is not perfect, but just look at some of the recent rulings and you will see "out of character" majorities.
Page: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: SCOTUS Strikes Voting Rights Act « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools