User avatar
bingster
04 Apr 2013 01:24 pm
bingster
User avatar
It should have absolutely nothing with what they "believe." They're supposed to apply the Constitution and the law. I'm glad though that you see my point. Imagine it was a conservative majority that found new "rights" with no basis in the Constitution that grossly infringed on liberal philosophy. ...
— LiberalForum Archive
User avatar
RichClem
04 Apr 2013 01:24 pm
RichClem
User avatar
...non-existent "rights" that have never been found in the Constitution on half the country.You mean like in the Citizens United decision?Where in the Constitution does it say that money equals speech?Money? What the heck are you babbling about? Obama's lawyers argued that on the basif of McCain-Fei...
— LiberalForum Archive
User avatar
Nobody
04 Apr 2013 01:22 pm
Nobody
User avatar
...non-existent "rights" that have never been found in the Constitution on half the country.You mean like in the Citizens United decision?Where in the Constitution does it say that money equals speech?Just what Virginia needs, a corrupt hack from the Clinton years. If McAuliffe is elected governor o...
— LiberalForum Archive
User avatar
RichClem
04 Apr 2013 01:18 pm
RichClem
User avatar
I'm not arguing in favor of particular issues like sodomy laws or anti-abortion laws, just advocating that they be decided by elected representatives, not by an unaccountable court. And what's to stop religious zealots like Ken Cuccinelli from imposing their 'morals' on all of us through legislat...
— LiberalForum Archive
User avatar
Nobody
04 Apr 2013 01:15 pm
Nobody
User avatar
I'm not arguing in favor of particular issues like sodomy laws or anti-abortion laws, just advocating that they be decided by elected representatives, not by an unaccountable court.And what's to stop religious zealots like Ken Cuccinelli from imposing their 'morals' on all of us through legislation?...
— LiberalForum Archive
User avatar
RichClem
04 Apr 2013 01:13 pm
RichClem
User avatar
You do have a point when it comes to the difficulty of overturning a decision made by the Supreme Court. It's difficult, but not impossible. Usually, however, they do rule as per the Constitution. Most Supreme Court justices do believe that the right of privacy lives in the Constitution and they con...
— LiberalForum Archive
User avatar
bingster
04 Apr 2013 01:06 pm
bingster
User avatar
Are you blind or stupid? If politicians pass an unpopular law, they can be voted out of office. Yes, there is relative freedom in that. If the Supreme Court rules on something with which you disagree, how can you remedy it? It's almost impossible, so there has been a huge infringement on your fre...
— LiberalForum Archive
User avatar
RichClem
04 Apr 2013 12:58 pm
RichClem
User avatar
I'm psychotic? We want laws to ALLOW freedoms! We don't think elected officials should dictate what we do with our lives. You're the one who is hilarious! You think it's ok for the state to tell you how to have sex! There isn't anything even close to this in the liberal agenda! If you think I'm blin...
— LiberalForum Archive
User avatar
Nobody
04 Apr 2013 12:54 pm
Nobody
User avatar
Why didn't you respond to bingster's post?I didn't respond because he's psychotic.****.You run around here whining about how you want serious debate, and then as soon as someone challenges you, you engage is childish name calling. You're the biggest phony around. You have no interest in any kind of ...
— LiberalForum Archive
User avatar
bingster
04 Apr 2013 12:51 pm
bingster
User avatar
I didn't respond because he's psychotic. I never claimed a fetus had Constitutional rights. But it is abhorrent that actual life should be defined by an unaccountable Supreme Court. It should be left to our elected representatives as it was for over 200 years. How hilarious. Look at the liber...
— LiberalForum Archive