Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 06/29/2010 1:33:22 PM PDT by jazusamo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: jazusamo
What any of that has to do with The Constitution of the United States Of America is anybody's guess

The other two branches don't follow the US Constitution, why should the judicial?

2 posted on 06/29/2010 1:38:58 PM PDT by bgill (how could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the POTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: harpseal; TexasCowboy; nunya bidness; AAABEST; Travis McGee; Squantos; wku man; SLB; ...
Click the Gadsden flag for pro-gun resources!
3 posted on 06/29/2010 1:42:58 PM PDT by Joe Brower (Sheep have three speeds: "graze", "stampede" and "cower".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jazusamo
The liberal trash needs to remember that in the future, a court composed of more conservative judges might well ignore the make-believe constitutional concept that protects Roe v. Wade as they, the conservatives, take a shot kicking ‘stare decisis’ down the road.
5 posted on 06/29/2010 1:49:29 PM PDT by skimbell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jazusamo

the constitution is meaningless, or at best, secondary to the agenda.


6 posted on 06/29/2010 1:56:39 PM PDT by paul51 (11 September 2001 - Never forget)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jazusamo

Inside every Leftist politician, judge, journalist and ‘celebrity’ - in fact, every Leftist in public life - is a Little Dictator struggling to get out.


7 posted on 06/29/2010 2:07:20 PM PDT by Jack Hammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jazusamo

Shouldn’t be any great surprise. Liberals are all about the rules, at least when they’re for “thee” and not “me”. In fact even on this particular issue, they’re contradicting themselves from when they contradicted their earlier contradictions. They’re so concerned about “stare decisis” when confirming a potentially conservative jurist, but the decisions they seek to enshrine are far newer and shorter lived than the practices and rulings THEY overturned, thus LESS deserving of deference than those liberals were happy to cast aside.


8 posted on 06/29/2010 2:14:28 PM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jazusamo

it is a stupid question for a supreme court nominee.

stare decisis does not apply to them because THEY are the highest court with no other court above them.

The supreme court always has the power to overule itself. Reporters are just too stupid to get it. (cnn’s toobin is just plain stupid and should have his JD revoked)


9 posted on 06/29/2010 3:01:43 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: AdmSmith; Berosus; bigheadfred; blueyon; Convert from ECUSA; dervish; Ernest_at_the_Beach; ...
Concepts like 'stare decisis' (the legal principle that obliges judges to respect precedents established by prior decisions) that were so important during the confirmation hearings of Justice Roberts, mean nothing to the sitting liberal justices.
Thanks jazusamo.
11 posted on 06/29/2010 3:11:41 PM PDT by SunkenCiv ("Fools learn from experience. I prefer to learn from the experience of others." -- Otto von Bismarck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jazusamo
Thank you. I wanted to express just that, but I am not as articulate.
12 posted on 06/29/2010 3:47:49 PM PDT by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jazusamo

Nothing real means anything to liberals. It’s all what they say it is when they say it is. Alice in Wonderland time for all.


14 posted on 06/29/2010 4:06:51 PM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jazusamo

Can we now charge Sotomayer with perjury for lying to Congress when she said that she believed that the 2nd Amendment was an individual right?


16 posted on 06/29/2010 4:48:14 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (The US will not die with a whimper. It will die with thundering applause from the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jazusamo

Short of impeachment there are no checks on the USSC. This makes it unique and arguably the most dangerous branch of government. Especially now that many justices just cloth political objectives with legal sophistry and pass it off as jurisprudence.


18 posted on 06/29/2010 5:51:19 PM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jazusamo
Justices Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor ignored stare decisis, the law, and the intentions of the authors of our Constitution to vote against restraints on Government power.

They also vote ignoring the possibility of starting a civil war.

19 posted on 06/29/2010 7:31:09 PM PDT by coloradan (The US has become a banana republic, except without the bananas - or the republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jazusamo
Scalia's smackdown of the dissenting opinion was classic, and a must-read.

 

Cornell has links to the opinions in HTML

Quoting Scalia (Bolding is mine)

  Exactly what is covered is not clear. But whatever else is in, he knows that the right to keep and bear arms is out, despite its being as “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” Washington v. Glucksberg , 521 U. S. 702, 721 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted), as a right can be, see District of Columbia v. Heller , 554 U. S. ___, ___–___, ___–___, ___–___ (2008) (slip op., at 20–21, 26–30, 41–44). I can find no other explanation for such certitude except that Justice Stevens, despite his forswearing of “personal and private notions, post , at 21 (internal quotation marks omitted), deeply believes it should be out.

Wow. In the language of a supreme court ruling, thems pracically fighting words. Scalia pretty much came right out and said the minority were practicing judicial malpractice.

22 posted on 06/29/2010 8:23:52 PM PDT by zeugma (Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson