[michigan83]

I think Magellan better get in here fast before the abortion debate takes over this thread.

[magellan]

Originally Posted by Sparrow_temp

I care more about what the Constitution says and not what some idiot interpreted it as saying in between the lines or in an unwritten part -- the idea of court precedent is problematic. You get one wrong decision and a lot more follow. For instance, Roe vs. Wade created abortion law out of thin air and somehow found a right to privacy in the constitution that's not there. Miranda v Arizona forced the police to read Miranda rights or not be able to utilize confessions as evidence. Case Kelo vs City of New London made it legal to take private property and give it to another private entity under eminent domain. Case AT&T Mobility vs Concepcion took away the right to sue a corporation by upholding arbitration agreements that favor the corp 95-98% of the time. Perry vs Schwarzenegger overturning a state Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. The Legislature should be making law and not the Courts. A belief in judicial activism should be a disqualifier for judges.

If something is not in there -- pass a Constitutional amendment to put it in there instead of just making it up.

And you're right about the drug thing -- this should be decided on a state by state basis. You're not right about killing unborn children or changing what the world marriage means to satisfy the homosexual community.

Change what the word marriage means? From where? Did you know you can marry a wooden beam to a steel bracket?

Didn't the judiciary also stop racial segregation in schools? And in public places? Sometimes the masses don't always know what's right...

[313Weather]

Originally Posted by Sparrow_temp

I care more about what the Constitution says and not what some idiot interpreted it as saying in between the lines or in an unwritten part

You should stop posting.

First off, if you can't debate a simple issue without calling names then you need to go find some children to play with, because grown folks are having discussions here.

Second, it was one of the founders of this country who said that (Thomas Jefferson), not me. I also don't give any credibility to anyone who calls Thomas Jefferson an idiot. You need to educate yourself as well. I posted that already above, but it was too factual for you apparently to comprehend because it pushed against your comfort zone. Oh well.

I'm done here, I have nothing else to say to you sir. Good day (or rather, since it Midnight, good night).

[Sparrow_temp]

Sorry if you misinterpreted what I said. I thought it was clear in context that "idiot" was referring to modern day judges trying to find things in the Constitution that simply aren't there. Thomas Jefferson had his own opinions but they are not in the Constitution; ask yourself why that is. The judges that think the Constitution is a living document that can be changed by simply reinterpreting things to fit a modern world view that they may have are unfit to be on the bench. It's a living document because it can be amended. If there's something that needs to be in the constitution that isn't -- amend it. There's a process for that but it actually requires voting. Don't put things in there by judicial decree -- judges are not lawmakers. Liberals are changing the law of the land via the courts instead of via legislation because they know they could never get the types of laws passed the proper way. Judicial activism needs to be stopped and judges with a belief of strict constructionism need to be put on the bench.

If you want to imply that I'm being childish and leave -- look at your own post with some introspection.

Originally Posted by 313Weather

You should stop posting.

First off, if you can't debate a simple issue without calling names then you need to go find some children to play with, because grown folks are having discussions here.

Second, it was one of the founders of this country who said that (Thomas Jefferson), not me. I also don't give any credibility to anyone who calls Thomas Jefferson an idiot. You need to educate yourself as well. I posted that already above, but it was too factual for you apparently to comprehend because it pushed against your comfort zone. Oh well.

I'm done here, I have nothing else to say to you sir. Good day (or rather, since it Midnight, good night).

[313Weather]

Originally Posted by Sparrow_temp

Sorry if you misinterpreted what I said. I thought it was clear in context that "idiot" was referring to modern day judges trying to find things in the Constitution that simply aren't there. Thomas Jefferson had his own opinions but they are not in the Constitution; ask yourself why that is. The judges that think the Constitution is a living document that can be changed by simply reinterpreting things to fit a modern world view that they may have are unfit to be on the bench. It's a living document because it can be amended. If there's something that needs to be in the constitution that isn't -- amend it. There's a process for that but it actually requires voting. Don't put things in there by judicial decree -- judges are not lawmakers. Liberals are changing the law of the land via the courts instead of via legislation because they know they could never get the types of laws passed the proper way. Judicial activism needs to be stopped and judges with a belief of strict constructionism need to be put on the bench.

If you want to imply that I'm being childish and leave -- look at your own post with some introspection.

Well I do have one more post for you now that I think about it.

What in the heck do you think "nor give political preference to one religion or another (exact words in the establishment clause)" means?

I mean what more can it mean than a seperation of church and state? Otherwise GIVING political preference to one religion over another would be the complete opposite of that. Then you brought up the part about prayer in shcools in such forth, but wouldn't that in essence be unconstitutional since it was giving preference in public institutions to christianity or say Judaism or Buddhaism (sp?)?

I'm just trying to understand your logic now.

And you're starting to come across as a loon now. So because certain people (who have degrees in law, where's yours?) interpreted laws a certain way and you dislike them, you write off the entire document and disrespect that person? That's very unamerican too BTW. While judges are not lawmakers, their interpretation of it in the Supreme Court is the only one that stands for all legal intents according to the constitution (do you know anything about that document?).

[Trail twister]

This thread was started as what do you think of good old Ricky Snyder!!!
All you who have brought up abortions, the US Constitution, marriage and other nonrelevent crap come across as crazy at Tricky Ricky.

[actinic]

Actually the pro Snyder crowd is remarkably restrained and concise compared to the anti Snyder wackos who populate these threads. Nevertheless they are a constant source of amusement.

[michigan83]

Originally Posted by actinic

Actually the pro Snyder crowd is remarkably restrained and concise compared to the anti Snyder wackos who populate these threads. Nevertheless they are a constant source of amusement.

Bingo.

Unfortunately, all of those people who come in here with incoherent, propaganda-filled, alarmist, out-of-left-field arguments get to vote too.

[Trail twister]

So now tricky rick wants your doctor to report your kids BMI to the state.
Mean while back at the ranch the unemployement rate is raising.
Still no job produceing plan anounced in 9 months.
How does he think he can lure jobs from a country with slave labor to Michigan?

Will good old tricky ricky be patting his self on the back when the Christmas help hiring begins whit what a good job I did?
When they get laid off inJanuary Febuary will it be the same old, OH WELL SUCH IS LIFE?

[michmoldman]

Originally Posted by Trail twister

So now tricky rick wants your doctor to report your kids BMI to the state.
Mean while back at the ranch the unemployement rate is raising.
Still no job produceing plan anounced in 9 months.
How does he think he can lure jobs from a country with slave labor to Michigan?

Will good old tricky ricky be patting his self on the back when the Christmas help hiring begins whit what a good job I did?
When they get laid off inJanuary Febuary will it be the same old, OH WELL SUCH IS LIFE?

Y...like the doctors actually have time to report that...and if they did...like they really would. And your right...the rest of the country is booming when it comes to hiring people!