Judicial Tyranny

john smith get a fucking life you muther fucker, just because you think ure an action hero doesnt mean you can speak to me like a hard man!!! i@m guna hunt you down bitch

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Fuck you asshole,i'll be back!!!!!!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Your scenario is tragically flawed in several ways.

First of all, if the atheist loses the case, and then fails an appeal, that's it, boom he's screwed, it doesn't go to the supreme court. Second, both the municipal judge, the appellate court judge, and likely several others before it gets to the Supreme Court, would all, despite being randomly chosen for the case, have to be either collectively insane in the same way such that they'd rule in favor of the atheist, or at least hear the appeal and keep things going up the ladder, or they'd all have to be in on the Supreme Court's Conspiracy.

Second, the Supreme Court would have to be a bunch of conspiring weirdos who don't seem to have a grip on their job descriptions, which I find to be unlikely, if not imposable, however any scenario in which we have to assume a massive conspiracy to abuse power toward a hidden agenda on the part of our power-elite is sort of doomed to both improbability and sensationalism to begin with.

Also, I find it implausible that the ACLU would defend the atheist in this case, as, judging by their actual history of activism and involvement, I believe they'd be far more likely to side with the man who was reading the bible. I know that it probably doesn't seem this way if all you listen to is right-wing propaganda, but trust me, the ACLU really likes the first amendment.

and finally, even if the Supreme Court were to fly in such clear defiance of the first amendment, I do believe that the congress has the power to impeach them.

In other words, the system is still self-righting and as such is not broken.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In what way? How would deeming some state measure which says, for instance, that it's citizens no longer have the right to speak freely without being fined or jailed (just for example) being deemed unconstitutional be an offence against the constitution?

How is appealing to the constitution to destroy lesser laws which fly in the face of it somehow damaging to the constitution?

 

This is how our Judicial system works. And when one case comes up that's enough like another they might talk about the ruling on that one for a while, as well before making a judgement.

No, actually, this is not a different thing. It's another very necessary process in dealing with a set of complex laws written by man. Are you trying to say that in the event of a conflict between laws, that both should be enforced? How could this be if one contradicts the other? It's all nice for abstract thinking, but here in the real world paradoxes can not exist, and if our laws are supposed to govern human behavior then we can't exactly expect people to act in paradoxical manners.

I really don't think that this is such a difficult issue to wrap your head around.

 

If you don't want to address my previous points I really shouldn't continue this discussion, but I will point out that that is one of Science's strengths. It does not come up with immutable universal truths, it comes up with models of the universe based on available evidence. Religion says "To fuck with the universe, I'm right about everything all the time despite what evidence to the contrary may be presented."

Teaching biblical creation alongside evolution would be comical, as well as insulting to Native Americans. This is, after all, a Native American nation, and their creation myths should take eminence in the classroom over Christian ones.

 

What are you talking about Mystech? Just this afternoon I simultaneously enjoyed a few quite hours alone and smoked medicinal marijuana and was arrested by federal agents for possession of a controlled substance. I did these things at the same time.

I wholly endorse this brand of quantum state jurisprudence.

 

Mystech,

Your logic is sick.
I am ashamed of you and the rest of the liberal traitors.

e

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

s

 

Would you care to explain to me how my logic is "sick"? I'm afraid that, being that it's my currently held view, I must be missing what exactly is wrong with it. Do you mean to say that my logic is flawed, or simply that my insistence on logical thinking in this matter is sickening?

Also, what's wrong with Liberals? They make the world go ‘round. Jesus was a liberal, and if you ask me he was a pretty cool dude. I'd bust up a temple with him and his crew any day, lord knows we could use some of that.

And again, regarding the core issue, if we say, did away with the Supreme Court (or it's powers of judicial oversight) who then would decide matters in which a law seems to contradict the constitution? Who would be given the power to interoperate the law? Or would we simply let laws get so contradictory and muddled and counter to the nation's founding principals that the idea of law and order in the US would become a complete joke and collapse in on itself? That doesn't sound like a really viable option to me.

Or let’s just get to the heart of your opinion on this matter. I’ve been too polite to point it out previously, but I feel that it’s fairly evident. You disagree with some of the rulings of the Supreme Court, and likely some lesser courts on cases regarding judicial review, and so now you’re in favor of disassembling the body all together. What was it? The legalized same-sex marriage in Massachusetts? The imposed legalization of homosexual activity in Texas and across the nation? Do you fear the Supreme Court’s current potential power to make same-sex marriage legal through out the entire country once the DoMA and all these state constitutional amendments are finally challenged in court? Don’t be. The system is balanced, and not even the majority has complete power over all affairs. That’s a disciplined democracy. The fact that you fear your recent changes being done away with by a judicial board full of conservatives is proof that you right-wingers have gone too far even for the right-wing’s old guard.

 

You need to buck up, Mr. Negative. Sure, gays are allowed to have sex without it being a crime. Soon they will be able to marry.I'm sure that really steams your clam. You are close to being able to ban abortion nationwide though. But think of it this way, we liberals lost a legitimately elected president through this system. The supreme court took extralegal measures to get Bush into his first term, and we liberals knew there was nothing to do about it. Any challenge could only end up with the same court that did the deed. You don’t see *us* bitching and moaning about destroying the court.

If we want a constitution that means anything, we need the court.

 

Mystech, you say that my scenario was flawed, but you never actually said why it couldn't happen. Keep in mind that I do not think that the court will usurp power, merely that it could. It wouldn't be hard to set this all up. Honestly, if I were a Supreme Court justice, I'm sure I could easily get something similar to this passed through.

You say the ACLU would support the man with the Bible, but with a history such as theirs (fighting to get religious materials removed from students' posession, forcing people to remove things of religious nature from their own property, etc.) and members coming from such illustrious groups as the former American Communist Party, how could you say they wouldn't jump on this case. Also, from their point of view, remeber that they are defending the atheist's first ammendment rights, and not jeopardizing the Constitution at all.

 

Seeeeee, you can not think staight. Why do you think liberals, the Judas, so afraid of him that they want to ban Christianity, genius?
Jesus said he came to bring to the world the sword, not peace. To separate the good seed from bad seed, to cut and throw into the fire, trees that do not bear a good fruit.
Jesus was THE moral maximalist, and he would not have anything in common with cowardly liberal scoundrels and fools.

e

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

s

 

How perverted it is of you, to bring your crappy gays into discussion of importent constitutional issues.

ES

 

If you really thought these issues were important you would probably take some time to think about them.

 

I'm forced to infer you suffer from a seriously deficient intelligence quotient. The Constitution is often refered to as the "Supreme Law of the Land." As such, its tenets preside over all lesser laws passed by the Legislature. The Judiciary, under authority granted it by the Constitution, is given the sole authority to ensure the government acts in compliance with the Constitution. It does this via the judicial review process. You said, quoted above, that matters of Constitutional controversy should be decided on a case by case basis, presumably by the courts (implied by you, if not directly stated).

How is this NOT a verbatim definition of the existing judicial review process?

So you have agreed with the process in one post, while argueing for its dismantleing in another.

 

Considering that your head is empty, it is a remarkable achievement. You may keep your feeding tube for now

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

ES

 

I believe that my post was layed that all out, actualy, I gave three reasons of how it's implausable.

They've defended Pat Robertson, and other big name religious folk - they've defended evangelical Christian students groups in highschools and on University campuses, and so far as I know they've never taken a case where someone was simply offended that they saw or heard someone reading a bible to themselves or someone else in a public place.

Well, perhaps in your hypothetical scenario this would be the case. Of course that's the beauty of constructing a hypothetical, things get to happen just as you'd like them for the sake of argument. Personally I don't think that your opinion of this really matches up very well with the reality of what would happen in such a scenario. These guys are all about civil liberties.

The right-wing likes to demonize them for various reasons, usually because the right wing doesn’t particularly care so much about civil liberties, and they get in trouble with Christian groups as many Christian groups feel that the first amendment somehow entitles them to impose their religion on others whether willing or not.

 

Wait, who wants to ban Christianity now? Most liberals I know are Christian and are very driven by their faith. Why the heck do you think so many of 'em are so bent on helping the poor? Isn't that mentioned like over a thousand times in the bible?

Liberals just tend no to go running around screaming their faith from the mountain top and demanding that everyone take heed.

Are you sure? It seems to me that just about everything Jesus says is reflected in the democratic party's platform. Jesus was the quintessential liberal, he was practically a friggin' radical hippie (hell he even looked and lived like one). He moved and shook things up, struck out against the religious establishment that he viewed as being corrupt and oppressive, rejected many of their teachings and made his own rules. He was full of quips about compassion and understanding, even for your enemies, and about how rich people are inherently immoral and how everyone has an obligation to help those who are worse of than they are. If Jesus were alive today I'm pretty sure that Fox News and Right-wing Talk radio would be putting him on the coals constantly - hell Dick Cheney and Carl Rove would probably get out there and nail him to the cross themselves! Jesus was definitely no right-winger.

 

I doubt that even lobotomy or something could help an activist liberal:
being coward and fool and scoundrel is incurable

e

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

s

 

I would agree that my scenario is implausible, unforseeable, and borderline clinical paranoia, but it is not impossible, and that is the only point I am trying to make. If the court wanted power, it could take it, with enough uninterrupted time. And most liberals are Christians? Come on, most liberals have no care for morals and no view of anything but the inside of their wallet. Of Christian liberals, at the least we can say most aren't very good Christians...