Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: SCOTUS Strikes Voting Rights Act « previous next »
Page: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 ... 15

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
#120 : July 12, 2013, 12:31:35 PM

Play out Brown v Board with no judicial review. Actually lay out what you think happens to Oliver and the others without it.

Play out race relations in the United States had judicial review not struck down a number of civil rights bills passed by congress in an 1883 ruling, which were aimed at doing the same thing that Brown V Board did and more, except that they were passed about 75 years earlier. While you are trumpeting the virtues of Brown V Board, you are forgetting that it was that ruling, coupled with Plessy V Ferguson, that made Brown V Board necessary in the first place.

You should try reading John Marshall Harlan's dissent in both of those cases. The man knew more about the meaning of the Constitution and the effects that those decisions would have on race relations in the United States than any other justice of his day, but since he was in the minority, it didn't matter.

you're missing the point because you're trying so hard to advocate your position.  Nobody has ever said the SC is perfect, far from it (Plessy), but my comment was about the procedure, play out Brown without judicial review.

No, you're missing the point, or rather, are trying to change it. You want me to play out Brown V Board without judicial review? Well how about you play out the Civil Rights cases ruling in 1883 without judicial review, or Plessy V Ferguson without judicial review. You act as though one is more profound, or important than the other. SCOTUS helped change race relations for the better in 1954, but it also set them back by generations in 1883.

Your focus on the results (i.e. "oh yeah, Brown isn't even req'd but for Plessy) illustrates my point that you are actually unhappy with the result but you are turning that displeasure with the result into a claim that the procedure is wrong, the the Court doesn't have the power to do what it does.

The court doesn't have the power to do what it does, and you damn well know it, which is why you are trying to change the subject and attack my character rather than the merits of my argument. Sign of a weak case, a lawyer once told me.


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20082
Offline
#121 : July 12, 2013, 12:38:35 PM

you will not admit it, but you should be able to see now why I bowed out of this conversation before and why I will do it again now.  There's no point in discussing an issue that isn't genuine.

Btw, you never found or posted a single comment by you, out of 10s of thousands, where you objected to judicial review before the Voting case. I just gave you a second chance to prove me wrong and all you're doing is proving me right . .  again

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\'s Cancer Center

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
#122 : July 12, 2013, 01:09:46 PM

you will not admit it, but you should be able to see now why I bowed out of this conversation before and why I will do it again now.  There's no point in discussing an issue that isn't genuine.

Btw, you never found or posted a single comment by you, out of 10s of thousands, where you objected to judicial review before the Voting case. I just gave you a second chance to prove me wrong and all you're doing is proving me right . .  again

At a certain point, Vince, you are going to have to admit that what sparks my objection is irrelevant to the facts presented. The fact that you refuse to admit this, and continue to argue along that line just to avoid arguing on the other one, just shows that you have no defense for it. You are attempting to do the same thing with me as you did earlier with Thomas Jefferson, and that is to claim that the only reason we oppose judicial review is because we don't like a ruling. If you have the gumption to sit here and question Jefferson's integrity in defense of this unjustifiable power grab, then it's no wonder that you would do the same to me. I am unsurprised, because you are shameless.

You claimed that judicial review grants the Constitution supremacy. Well, read the majority opinion in the Plessy case, and then read John Marshall Harlan's dissent, and you tell me which one expresses the true spirit of what the Constitution stands for. Congress was right, and Harlan was right, but a majority of justices disagreed for strictly ideological reasons, and because of that, the Constitution was rendered meaningless. Jefferson was dead on, and any fool can see it, regardless of your constant shifting and spinning on this issue.


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20082
Offline
#123 : July 12, 2013, 01:23:52 PM

what sparks my objection is irrelevant.

yeah, that's exactly what I think when I discuss a gun restriction with posters only to find out their actual concern was the "slippery slope" and not the actual restriction . . lol

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\'s Cancer Center

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
#124 : July 12, 2013, 01:29:09 PM

what sparks my objection is irrelevant.

yeah, that's exactly what I think when I discuss a gun restriction with posters only to find out their actual concern was the "slippery slope" and not the actual restriction . . lol

Not surprising that you left of the end of that sentence, because you are shameless. You can't deny the fact that the Constitution doesn't grant the SCOTUS this power, nor that there is absolutely no difference between them claiming powers not granted to them in the Constitution and the Executive or Legislative branches doing the same thing (Obama is a dictator, but SCOTUS is just changing to meet current conditions), so you continue to try and shift the topic to something else. Shameless. Pathetic. Sad.

At least when the Executive or Legislative branches do things perceived as acting outside of their Constitutional scope, they attempt to justify it with some part of the Constitution (General Welfare Clause, Interstate Commerce Clause, etc.). SCOTUS doesn't even do that. They don't have to. They are the ruling branch of the government. They can do whatever they want.
: July 12, 2013, 01:33:31 PM CBWx2


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20082
Offline
#125 : July 12, 2013, 01:34:05 PM

what sparks my objection is irrelevant to the facts presented

yeah, that's exactly what I think when I discuss a gun restriction with posters only to find out their actual concern was the "slippery slope" and not the actual restriction . . lol

Not surprising that you left of the end of that sentence, because you are shameless. You can't deny the fact that the Constitution doesn't grant the SCOTUS this power, nor that there is absolutely no difference between them claiming powers not granted to them in the Constitution and the Executive or Legislative branches doing the same thing, so you continue to try and shift the topic to something else. Shameless. Pathetic. Sad.

not sure what difference "to the facts presented" makes but I added it back.  Pro-gun posters put up a bunch of "facts presented" but in reality they are only concerned about the "slippery slope."

What is "shameless," "pathetic" and "sad" is that you haven't been able to find a single instance where you raised the judicial review issue BEFORE the voting case and yet you still expect me to play along with your sham . . . that's just weird.

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\'s Cancer Center

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
#126 : July 12, 2013, 01:40:13 PM

Here's a fact. The Constitution, which has the primary purpose of expressing what powers each branch of government has, does not grant the power of judicial review to the Supreme Court.

By the Supreme Court imbuing itself with a power not granted to them in the Constitution, it is acting unconstitutionally. That is the concern. No slippery slope argument. No mention of a specific ruling. Try arguing in favor of judicial review taking only this undeniable fact into consideration. We both know you can't, which explains this latest nonsensical meltdown of yours.


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20082
Offline
#127 : July 12, 2013, 01:51:23 PM

Here's a fact. The Constitution, which has the primary purpose of expressing what powers each branch of government has, does not grant the power of judicial review to the Supreme Court.

By the Supreme Court imbuing itself with a power not granted to them in the Constitution, it is acting unconstitutionally. That is the concern. No slippery slope argument. No mention of a specific ruling. Try arguing in favor of judicial review taking only this undeniable fact into consideration. We both know you can't, which explains this latest nonsensical meltdown of yours.

here's an argument: you're not actually upset about judicial review, you're upset about the ruling in the voting case

here's a FACT to support that argument:  you have NEVER posted a single objection to judicial review in any of the many SCOTUS threads until you got a ruling your didn't like

here's another FACT:  you are unable to prove the fact above to be false

take care

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\'s Cancer Center

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
#128 : July 12, 2013, 01:56:13 PM

Here's a fact. The Constitution, which has the primary purpose of expressing what powers each branch of government has, does not grant the power of judicial review to the Supreme Court.

By the Supreme Court imbuing itself with a power not granted to them in the Constitution, it is acting unconstitutionally. That is the concern. No slippery slope argument. No mention of a specific ruling. Try arguing in favor of judicial review taking only this undeniable fact into consideration. We both know you can't, which explains this latest nonsensical meltdown of yours.

here's an argument: you're not actually upset about judicial review, you're upset about the ruling in the voting case

here's a FACT to support that argument:  you have NEVER posted a single objection to judicial review in any of the many SCOTUS threads until you got a ruling your didn't like

here's another FACT:  you are unable to prove the fact above to be false

take care

The people in the gun control thread that argue against you put up far better arguments to defend their "slippery slope" position than you have here. You have successfully maintained your status as a complete joke. Take care.


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20082
Offline
#129 : July 12, 2013, 02:29:50 PM

Here's a fact. The Constitution, which has the primary purpose of expressing what powers each branch of government has, does not grant the power of judicial review to the Supreme Court.

By the Supreme Court imbuing itself with a power not granted to them in the Constitution, it is acting unconstitutionally. That is the concern. No slippery slope argument. No mention of a specific ruling. Try arguing in favor of judicial review taking only this undeniable fact into consideration. We both know you can't, which explains this latest nonsensical meltdown of yours.

here's an argument: you're not actually upset about judicial review, you're upset about the ruling in the voting case

here's a FACT to support that argument:  you have NEVER posted a single objection to judicial review in any of the many SCOTUS threads until you got a ruling your didn't like

here's another FACT:  you are unable to prove the fact above to be false

take care

The people in the gun control thread that argue against you put up far better arguments to defend their "slippery slope" position than you have here. You have successfully maintained your status as a complete joke. Take care.

another FACT: it drives you nuts that I am 100% right or else you would just post a pre-voting case comment on judicial review.

another FACT:  proof it drives you nuts lies in the fact that you keep posting and taking shots at me . . . when you could just post the comment . . . if it existed.... but it doesn't.

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\'s Cancer Center

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
#130 : July 12, 2013, 03:01:39 PM

Here's a fact. The Constitution, which has the primary purpose of expressing what powers each branch of government has, does not grant the power of judicial review to the Supreme Court.

By the Supreme Court imbuing itself with a power not granted to them in the Constitution, it is acting unconstitutionally. That is the concern. No slippery slope argument. No mention of a specific ruling. Try arguing in favor of judicial review taking only this undeniable fact into consideration. We both know you can't, which explains this latest nonsensical meltdown of yours.

here's an argument: you're not actually upset about judicial review, you're upset about the ruling in the voting case

here's a FACT to support that argument:  you have NEVER posted a single objection to judicial review in any of the many SCOTUS threads until you got a ruling your didn't like

here's another FACT:  you are unable to prove the fact above to be false

take care

The people in the gun control thread that argue against you put up far better arguments to defend their "slippery slope" position than you have here. You have successfully maintained your status as a complete joke. Take care.

another FACT: it drives you nuts that I am 100% right or else you would just post a pre-voting case comment on judicial review.

another FACT:  proof it drives you nuts lies in the fact that you keep posting and taking shots at me . . . when you could just post the comment . . . if it existed.... but it doesn't.

Didn't you say "Take care", meaning that you were supposed to be done with the discussion? He....can't....help....it....

FACT: You continue to harp on the irrelevant in order to avoid having to address the relevant. You've lost the argument, and now you are working your way towards losing "it", although it can be argued that you already have.


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20082
Offline
#131 : July 12, 2013, 03:25:56 PM

Here's a fact. The Constitution, which has the primary purpose of expressing what powers each branch of government has, does not grant the power of judicial review to the Supreme Court.

By the Supreme Court imbuing itself with a power not granted to them in the Constitution, it is acting unconstitutionally. That is the concern. No slippery slope argument. No mention of a specific ruling. Try arguing in favor of judicial review taking only this undeniable fact into consideration. We both know you can't, which explains this latest nonsensical meltdown of yours.

here's an argument: you're not actually upset about judicial review, you're upset about the ruling in the voting case

here's a FACT to support that argument:  you have NEVER posted a single objection to judicial review in any of the many SCOTUS threads until you got a ruling your didn't like

here's another FACT:  you are unable to prove the fact above to be false

take care

The people in the gun control thread that argue against you put up far better arguments to defend their "slippery slope" position than you have here. You have successfully maintained your status as a complete joke. Take care.

another FACT: it drives you nuts that I am 100% right or else you would just post a pre-voting case comment on judicial review.

another FACT:  proof it drives you nuts lies in the fact that you keep posting and taking shots at me . . . when you could just post the comment . . . if it existed.... but it doesn't.

Didn't you say "Take care", meaning that you were supposed to be done with the discussion? He....can't....help....it....


we're not discussing judicial review any more (we never were -lol) and besides its ironic that you come back and post -- after also posting "take care" -- just to say that I posted a comment . . .lol. 

Why is it so imprtant to you to discuss Judicial Review with me anyway?  Don't get that?

Okay, go ahead  . .  you can have the last word . . .  an ice cold beer says that last word by you is NOT a quote of you complaining about Judicial Review BEFORE you got a ruling you didn't like  :-[

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\'s Cancer Center

Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 17496
Offline
#132 : July 12, 2013, 03:34:00 PM

Never thought I'd say this,  but I agree with CBW!

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

           

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20082
Offline
#133 : July 12, 2013, 03:36:26 PM

Never thought I'd say this,  but I agree with CBW!

that depends on what you agree about -lol

1) that he is really only upset about judicial review because of the outcome of the voting case? (have you seen him raise the issue prior?)

or

2) that  SCOTUS doesn't have the power to review laws for constitutionality?

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\'s Cancer Center

Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 17496
Offline
#134 : July 12, 2013, 03:43:54 PM

I can't speak to his motives for taking the stance , but I agree that SCOTUS is overstepping its bounds.

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

           
Page: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 ... 15
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: SCOTUS Strikes Voting Rights Act « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools