Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Did he say we need no laws at all? No laws prohibiting murder? I seriously doubt it.
He made a generalized statement saying we need no laws, if he meant we need some laws, then he should have said so. If someone says we need no laws, how am I to know which laws they think we need and don't need?
So you are the same as the fascists of the NYC city council? That is basically what you are saying with this post.
No, and if you believe that, then you really have some issues to work upon, especially given the fact that you said the other night that you believe that Plessy v Ferguson and Dred Scott v Sanford were decided correctly.
No, and if you believe that, then you really have some issues to work upon, especially given the fact that you said the other night that you believe that Plessy v Ferguson and Dred Scott v Sanford were decided correctly.
And by that definition, you must believe that Brown v Board of Education was incorrectly decided because it was done by the judicial system that you seem to be very much against.
Harrier thinks the NYC City Council are fascist=Rage=Harrier.
And by that definition, you must believe that Brown v Board of Education was incorrectly decided because it was done by the judicial system that you seem to be very much against.
No.
Brown v Board of Education was decided correctly.
Harrier isn't against the judicial system, only against wrongly decided cases.
He thinks that Plessy v Ferguson and Dred Scott v Sanford were wrongly decided, while you say that they were correctly decided simply because a judge or judges made the call.
Chief Justice Taney and the majority was and were wrong in Dred Scott v Sanford.
Justice Billings Brown and the majority was and were wrong in Plessy v Ferguson.
Chief Justice Warren(a Republican) and the rest of SCOTUS were right in Brown v Board of Education.
Justices Shelby and Vaughn were wrong in the Utah and California marriage cases, respectively, and Vaughn was biased - he is openly gay.
Harrier isn't against the judicial system, only against wrongly decided cases.
He thinks that Plessy v Ferguson and Dred Scott v Sanford were wrongly decided, while you say that they were correctly decided simply because a judge or judges made the call.
Chief Justice Taney and the majority was and were wrong in Dred Scott v Sanford.
Justice Billings Brown and the majority was and were wrong in Plessy v Ferguson.
Chief Justice Warren(a Republican) and the rest of SCOTUS were right in Brown v Board of Education.
Justices Shelby and Vaughn were wrong in the Utah and California marriage cases, respectively, and Vaughn was biased - he is openly gay.
Judges are fallible.
You should be able to understand this.
I didn't realize Harrier was the Supreme Supreme Justice. Though by your logic, if you think one Supreme Court case is wrong, then you must think all of them are wrong, that is what you keep accusing me for because I feel a specific Supreme Court case is right, that must be that I think all of them are right....unless you are finally willing to admit your mistake, I can only continue to think this is correctly how you think in regards to the Supreme Court.
I didn't realize Harrier was the Supreme Supreme Justice. Though by your logic, if you think one Supreme Court case is wrong, then you must think all of them are wrong, that is what you keep accusing me for because I feel a specific Supreme Court case is right, that must be that I think all of them are right....unless you are finally willing to admit your mistake, I can only continue to think this is correctly how you think in regards to the Supreme Court.
You did say that Plessy v. Ferguson and Dred Scott v Sanford were decided correctly because they were decided by an appointed and confirmed body of justices.
You claimed that the judicial tyranny imposed by the justices who have allowed gay marriage is also valid for similar reasons.
That reminds Harrier, you still haven't stated whether you think that Bowers v. Hardwick was decided correctly just because a body of justices said so.
If you need a reminder, that one upheld a Texas anti-sodomy law.
Harrier thinks that it was wrongly decided.
So is the NYC City Council wrong in their e-cigarette stance.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.