# Supreme court overstepping bigtime



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

read this, its long but it really nails it.

http://levin.nationalreview.com/


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

I guess it's safe to say ... There is now Legal Guidance on how to proceed ...

I also think it's safe to say we would have had four decenting Justices had Roberts been in the mix ...

Close Decision ... however, there is a name for "close decisions" in the Supreme Court.

We call it

THE LAW OF THE LAND

and that's what we live with ...

or so it seems to me


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

They did overstep their constitutional authority. This is what I refer to as activist judges legislating from the bench. Treacherous scoundrels is what they are. 
Next, weapons will be a minor cost of war. I'm not knocking all attorneys, but paying for the ambulance chasing type that will see money in defending terrorists will become the major expense. We could pay billions in the future defending these terrorists.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Decoy Dummy thats a good name for you if you think that the supreme court is the "law of the land".

The constitution is the "law of the land". Unfortunately 45 years of liberalism and dumbing down of the govt schools has made our politically stupid populace believe that somehow some dorks in robes are the final authority, they aren't, the written word ( not their interpretation of it) is the law of the land!

And just because they have decided to attempt to steal constituional authority from another branch doesn't change that.

I would suggest you purchase a book titled "men in Black" by levin and read it. Its dry reading but very informative, its a historical and current tome about the abuses of the supreme court, if you manage to struggle though it your opinion would change.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Bob ... no need to try to become offensive and personal ...

As we sit here today ... that decision is "The Law of the Land" ...

I'm not trying to imply it's the "End of the Story" ... But I believe it's safe to say The other branches of Government will now take steps based on how "The Law of the Land" is situated due to Yesterdays decision.

We could get into all sorts of discussions regarding the "correctness and longevity" of many SCOTUS decisions ... but it's a little pointless and I Promise to not mitigate you personally in the process if we do.

Obviously, GWB has taken TWO large steps trying to orient SCOTUS back into congruency with the Constitution ... but it's a painstakingly slow process ... If we are lucky he will get another Crack at it before his term ends.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Sorry about that I didn't mean to be abrasive I am just having a real bad day and it started yesterday  so forgive me for being a jerk.

I stand by my comments about the Supreme Court and that book will shock you if you take the time to read it.

I am real tired of the seeming ease that the courts in the country ignore the constitution.

Its a fact that almost noone know the records of various judges and they are big players in our life unfortunately.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Bob ... While I have not read the book I have seen/heard plenty of discussion about it ...

I agree many SCOTUS decisioins are off base especially in the eyes of "Strict Constitutionalists" (whom I count myself amoung.)

Based on how the Constituion is written the Supreme Court is the final say on what is (or is not) "Constitutional" at any given time in history ...

The beauty of the Constitution is that within it's bounds ... and as we recognize problems ... "We the People" have methods at our disposal to make corrections ...

However ... as I said in the last post "it's a painstakingly slow process."

I'm guessing Justice Stevens will die on the bench, the guy is what 85 or 86 or close to it?

I simply Trust in that Document Mr. Madison scribed into perpituity to (in the end) justify and allow for it's own survival through the realization of truth by "We the People."

Dred Scott didn't stand for long ... and much of what we see now will not stand for long either ... or so it seems to me.

Apology accepted ... I have my moody days as well and and not that I'm proud of it but, some of mine has been seen on this board. :eyeroll:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

The thing is, I think many of these judges know that their decisions are contradictory to the constitution. The problem is they are not only supreme court judges, they are supremely arrogant , and pushing their political agenda. That is why I like who Bush appoints. His litmus test - do you believe in and will you follow the constitution. The liberal litmus test, will you be in favor of abortion and gay rights. It appears like the age old struggle between good and evil.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Plainsman ...

It seems to me some Justices want to believe what they want to believe ...

Sort of like the guy who thinks reality is different for every person ... and believes with all his heart that his perception IS (his) reality.

Meanwhile REALITY couldn't give a **** what this guys perception is ... and just keeps kicking him in the A$$ at every turn.

I guess that is not a bad analogy of the Liberal approach to existance all together though. :lol:


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

I see the President took an initial step today with regards The SCOTUS decision.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

DecoyDummy said:


> I believe it's safe to say The other branches of Government will now take steps based on how "The Law of the Land" is situated due to Yesterdays decision.


As I said ...

We are today (September 6th) hearing what steps GWB is trying to take in order to comply with "The Law of the Land" as SCOTUS positioned it back in late June.

Less than two and a half months and things are once again on the table ...

Gotta-Love-America


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

AND ... now (September 28th)

We (will) now have new ... "Law of the Land" ... all approved by Congress.

1/4 of a year and the issue is addressed ... all ready for another run.

This thread is a "Sterling Example of What Is RIGHT with America"

Gotta-Love-AMERICA :beer:


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

You think maybe those old birds on the supreme court knew what was going to happen?


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

SCOTUS pretty much said in the June ruling ...

"If you want to fly with what you are currently doing, then you need to write new law to support it." ...

So yes I think "those Old Birds" knew because they for all intents and purposes "Suggested it."

Just an example of how the branches of Government can work in reasonable "Harmony" even when they disagree on a point by point basis at times.


----------

