SCOTUS Should NOT Be Final Arbiter

[Mike]

Thomas Jefferson rebuffed the notion that the Supreme Court's judges should be the "ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions." He wrote that it is "a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps."

The final arbiter should be the states themselves, the people. Of which the Republic is formed.

An interesting perspective:

http://www.restore-government-accountability.com/judicial-tyranny.html

 

[Lonecowboy]

excelent article Mike- all people need to read and know this.
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

It is absurd to think that just after such a long bloody war for Freedom that anyone would consent to place final Constitutional review in the hands of an appointed (not elected) 9 man oligarchy.

 

[Mike]

Thomas Jefferson's wisdom should humble all men. I could not imagine what he would think of today's leaders, or followers..............

 

[Faster horses]

If the SCOTUS rules against Obamacare, you can bet your boots
the liberals will come up with the heading on this thread!

 

[Lonecowboy]

Thomas Jefferson's wisdom should humble all men. I could not imagine what he would think of today's leaders, or followers..............

The founding fathers had lived under tyranny and opression for generations- they had a long time to think about Freedon and how to protect it. We in apathy and complacency have almost let it get away from us. Hopefully Freedom can be won back with a war of words this time and no need for bullets. If we use our rights guaranteed by the 1st Ammendment there might not be a need to use the 2nd Ammendment.
We can all pray!

 

[cowman52]

When the constitution was written, people had the sense to understand that for instance freedom to bear arms mention that you could own a gun. The problems started when some lawyer tried to figure a way around plain language. Now that has become the norm, trying to figure a way around something. Now the same ones doing the figuring are the ones sitting on the courts.
The men who wrote the constitution knew what they were doing, just didn't think that common sense and plain spoken words and thoughts would disappear.
And maybe some day a person might sit on the high court that has seen life as it is rather than through the eyes of what it could be if some intelligent person could tweak it a little.

 

[Lonecowboy]

If the SCOTUS rules against Obamacare, you can bet your boots
the liberals will come up with the heading on this thread!

FH nailed it;

At her weekly briefing today, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Cali.) was asked to opine on the Supreme Court proceedings on the Constitutionality of the health care law passed in 2010 when Democrats were in control of the House.

"I'm a supporter of judicial review, I honor the Constitution in that regard," Pelosi said to reporters. "That's why we wrote our bill in a way that was Constitutional. I still feel pretty confident about it. And if and when -- this game is not over. In March Madness, what happens when your team doesn't win one -- well wait a minute, let's have the game."

what's scary FH is that you are starting to scheme like a libtard! :wink:

 

[Faster horses]

:shock:

It's Tam's fault. She taught me well. :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[okfarmer]

If the SCOTUS rules against Obamacare, you can bet your boots
the liberals will come up with the heading on this thread!

FH nailed it;

At her weekly briefing today, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Cali.) was asked to opine on the Supreme Court proceedings on the Constitutionality of the health care law passed in 2010 when Democrats were in control of the House.

"I'm a supporter of judicial review, I honor the Constitution in that regard," Pelosi said to reporters. "That's why we wrote our bill in a way that was Constitutional. I still feel pretty confident about it. And if and when -- this game is not over. In March Madness, what happens when your team doesn't win one -- well wait a minute, let's have the game."

what's scary FH is that you are starting to scheme like a libtard! :wink:

I agree with her totally on this point. And I would like to see here bracket, there should be about 64 teams left on hers as 60 have lost only once . She again illustrates that she speaks about things she doesn't have a clue about, except the fact that Obamacare will have the same fate as a team that loses in March Madness. :lol: :wink: :wink: 8) 8) :lol: and

 

[Lonecowboy]

:shock:

It's Tam's fault. She taught me well. :lol: :lol: :lol:

:lol2: :lol2: :lol2:

libtard playbook rule #2- blame someone else!

what's next? are you going to play the racecard? or blame it all on Bush?

:lol2: :lol2: :lol2:

 

[hypocritexposer]

:shock:

It's Tam's fault. She taught me well. :lol: :lol: :lol:

:lol2: :lol2: :lol2:

libtard playbook rule #2- blame someone else!

what's next? are you going to play the racecard? or blame it all on Bush?

:lol2: :lol2: :lol2:

Probably the Repub's "war on women", that has got her all in a huffy mood :lol: :lol: :wink: