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.
Those Justices who did such injected their own personal opinion into what should have been immutable Constitutional Rights.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg went to a foreign nation and advised them not to model their Constitution after ours. This coming from a justice who is sworn to uphold the US Constitution. For those statements alone she should be removed from the court. How can she possibly render unbiased decisions on a Constitution she does not believe in?
Quote:
Justice Ginsburg: "I Would Not Look to the U.S. Constitution" http://www.dailysignal.com/2012/02/0...-constitution/
Feb 8, 2012 ... For a Justice of the Supreme Court to make such a statement is embarrassing and frankly disturbing. Her job is to interrupt the constitution, not ignore it or advocate the abolishment of it as a model. The United States is one of the greatest nations on earth and although we struggle to find our ways at times.
Ginsburg to Egyptians: I wouldn't use U.S. Constitution as a ... Ginsburg to Egyptians: I wouldn't use U.S. Constitution as a model | Fox News
Feb 6, 2012 ... ADVERTISEMENT. As Egyptian officials prepare to send to trial 19 American democracy and rights workers, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg visited Cairo last week where she suggested Egyptian revolutionaries not use the U.S. Constitution as a model in the post-Arab Spring. "I would not look ...
Ruth Bader Ginsburg To Egypt: Don't Use US Constitution As A ... http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...s_a_model.html
Feb 3, 2012 ... "You should certainly be aided by all the constitution-writing that has gone one since the end of World War II. I would not look to the US constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument ...
But they control everything. It would be futile at this point, I think.
The Nirvana Fallacy.....
So, the bright idea from the Marxists, is to strip more power from the people, to fight back.
You think the UK would be eliminating free speech and putting Blasphemy law in place, if the people still had small arms? They disarmed the public for one reason. So government, could become authoritarian and oppressive, without any real resistance that mattered. Control.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg went to a foreign nation and advised them not to model their Constitution after ours. This coming from a justice who is sworn to uphold the US Constitution. For those statements alone she should be removed from the court. How can she possibly render unbiased decisions on a Constitution she does not believe in?
She is pure evil. She believes more in Marx's ideology than she ever has any U.S. Constitution.
"Stevens, once the leader of the court's liberals, said the “schoolchildren and their supporters†who have been demonstrating against school shootings should “seek more effective and more lasting reform.â€
No, I'd say someone's actions define someone as a liberal.
So, by your logic, non-liberals are pro school shootings. Disgusting...
The very first Global Progressive President, Teddy Roosevelt, was also a Republican.
Mitt Romney admitted he was a Progressive Republican.
The fact they have people confused about that, shows the total mind control they have over the ignorant.
You cannot embrace Teddy Roosevelt or Mitt Romney as Republicans on the one hand, and then disavow them as Republicans on the other hand. Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican, but the Republican party one hundred years ago is not the same party it is today. Mitt Romney is a Republican, but many conservatives on this forum think of him as a RINO. I don't think there is all that much confusion, except from people who try to keep up a pretense that the Republican Party in 1860 was the same in 1910 and the same in 1960 and the same in 2010.
They might have an Achille's Heel somewhere, they aren't 100% invincible.
Their Achilles' Heel is this - when the rubber meets the road and they have to actually enforce the laws and policies they've made.
When the top marginal tax rate was the liberal dream of 91%, nobody actually paid that tax. Everyone figured out ways to dodge the tax by changing their financial behavior.
When the national speed limit was 55, people who felt like speeding whenever they pleased bought radar detectors.
When Prohibition was in effect, people who wanted to drink drank, they just did it in speakeasies.
When NY and CT implemented post-tragedy gun oppression, neither reached 10% total compliance. Almost nobody followed the new law.
Take the current topic of the 2A. OK, they get 2/3 of the House and Senate to say yea, then get 38 states to ratify. And? Did the addition of new words in the US Constitution make 350 million KNOWN firearms and over a trillion rounds of various ammunition disappear? Nope.
Go ahead and figure out the plan to actually enforce a nationwide gun ban, in practice, where the rubber meets the road, and there you'll find their Achilles' Heel. Given NY and CT compliance levels, as in states that go liberal in every election by default, figure national compliance at around 3-4%. Okie doke. Now ask Leviathan "what next" on the remaining 96-97%.
I am not issuing threats or suggesting violence, I am legitimately asking what next? Even with a full repeal of the 2A and the federal government dictating that no citizen can ever keep or bear arms, what do they do, at individual citizen ground level, to make the weapons and ammunition actually go away?
And that's their weakness. They can bluster, make laws, implement all manner of bureaucratic regs, but at some point they have to make it stick...and they fail. They'll scare a handful of knucklehead sheep into compliance, but by and large, American citizens will protest by simply not doing as they are told. We do it all the time on tons of laws, and so goes our history. Just ask drug dealers and users. We have four federal law enforcement agencies who all participate in the war on drugs, and 50+ years later, they are still losing.
They'll lose on this as well. Making a law is a whole different thing than enforcing one.
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.
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.
