The past few decades have seen a rise in the frequency, intensity, and

prominence of attacks against the courts by politicians, commentators,

scholars, and interest groups of judical activism and legislating from the bench.

They got this one right!

Underhi will like this thread. The other branch of the legislature.


This is AZ, everyone's got a gun in the house. The libs ought to have signs declaring NO gun in the house.

Like actress Sharon Stone who called a press conference to inform the criminals that she was taking all of her husband's guns and turning them into the police.

Of course, the media cooperated by not reporting the Stone's robberies.

Tough chick, too bad.

http://www.gunowners.org/news/nws9911.htm

Sharon Stone has just dramatically announced she's renouncing her guns, even though she once brandished one to turn back an intruder. I hope she's luckier than Alan Berg, the liberal Denver talk-show host who was murdered by members of the Aryan Nations after the police turned down his permit request. Or the less famous James Edward Scott, who in 1995 shot and wounded an intruder in the back yard of his West Baltimore home. The authorities took away his 22-caliber rifle. Less than a year later, another intruder broke into his row house. This time the 83-year-old man was strangled.

Blunt says California judges 'legislating from bench';



Schwarzenegger respects ruling


While Republican California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger offered a vow to uphold that state's Supreme Court ruling to strike down a ban on gay marriage, Republican Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt said the ruling was an example of judges legislating from the bench.

The following statement was issued by Blunt's office earlier today:

I am extremely disappointed, but not surprised, that the California Supreme Court has thwarted the will of the people by allowing gay marriage in their state. This is just the latest example of unelected judges legislating from the bench and reinforces the need for a constitutional protection at the highest level.

I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman and in 2004 stood with the majority of Missourians to protect traditional marriage by defining marriage as between one man and one woman in our state's constitution.

We are standing on a precipice where traditional values are being mocked by unelected judges. We must protect the sanctity of marriage by supporting an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

No statements have been received from any of Missouri's current gubernatorial candidates.

http://www.zimbio.com/Arnold+Schwarzenegge...gislating+bench


Missouri passed a 20-word constitutional amendment in 2004 that defined marriage as solely between a man and a woman. That constitutional amendment passed with a 70 percent favorable vote.

Everybody likes it when judges legislate in their favor from the bench. Exactly what is constitutional is hard to tell anymore. I can't imagine the framers had any idea what the scope and power of the US government would come to. It's hardly the loose collection of states they had to work with. Most of them feared federal power almost as much as they did the king.

this sounds like a quote from one of them there famous legislators.

The most important laws are written by nine people not representing anyone but their own self-interests.

What isn't so strange is the 535 folks who are supposedly elected to represent the peeps continue to condone and reinforce the writin' of them there laws by the nine aforementioned peeps.

It's a good way to deny responsibility. You don't see Pelosi or Reid taking credit for anything do you?

Oh, they raised the minimum wage I think.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/


dumbya

Exactly.

As long as they get reelected to the easier job on the planet, they're willing to let the Third Brand write some laws and finalize compromise bills in the Third Branch.

Jury clears mega-pastor's wife of assault
Thu Aug 14, 2008 5:23pm EDT return fullS; }


HOUSTON (Reuters) - A Texas jury on Thursday cleared the wife of television preacher and best-selling author Joel Osteen of civil charges she assaulted a flight attendant.

Sharon Brown, a Continental Airlines Inc flight attendant, filed a lawsuit accusing Victoria Osteen of shoving her against an airplane bathroom door and elbowing her in the breast after she failed to clean up a spill on Osteen's first-class seat.

"No matter what happened, I knew the truth was in me, and that was the most important thing," Victoria Osteen told reporters after the verdict was read.

The plaintiff left the courtroom smiling but without comment. Her lawyer said she was glad her case was heard.

The verdict, reached after five days of trial and less than three hours of deliberation, was unanimous.

Brown said the verbal and physical attack by Osteen -- the impeccably dressed charismatic blonde who plays a major role in her husband's Lakewood Church -- caused stress, depression and led her to question her faith.

The flight attendant sought an apology from Osteen and initially sought 10 percent of her net worth as damages. She later testified she would leave it up to the jury to determine what was fair.

The Federal Aviation Administration fined Osteen $3,000 for the incident, which occurred prior to takeoff of a December 2005 flight from Houston Intercontinental Airport to Vail, Colorado.

Lakewood, a "mega-church" that claims more than 35,000 worshipers each week, hold its services in a former professional basketball arena that the church spent millions of dollars to convert into a worship center.

Joel Osteen's televised sermons are broadcast in nearly 200 million U.S. households and in more than 100 countries, including India, Australia and Africa.


Sharon Brown said she lost her faith, got hemroids from
her assault. Wanted 10% of Osteen's net worth

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNew...451289320080814

Looks like this chick should come out with a rendition of My New Haircut - Stewardess style.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JMOh-cul6M

I was amazed that this suit was decided so wisely. Perhaps if no jury and only a judge, it would have been different. Just think... a white Christian woman assaulting a black woman causing her to lose her faith in God. What could be worse than that????

hemmoroids?

Yes, you're correct... that was the charge... The Osteens should have given her half of their net worth. I didn't know that you could get hemoroids that way, did you?

That poor suffering woman.

5-4

barely


Enemies of the American People:


"Justices":
Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer.

and Kennedy swings both way

still got that rainbow post?

This friggin clown actually thought Bushie was going to nominate him for Chief Legislator when Rehnquist died.

I didn't check to see if it has been deleted.

well his last name is "kennedy", shared by a family of the greatest statesmen and economic leaders of our time, except for ones named "Kerry".

He wasn't even 1st choice for SCOTUS.... only when Bork got Borked by the Dems.

Man gets 2 years in prison for killing cat

Thu, Aug 14, 2008 (11:54 a.m.)

A Los Angeles man who killed his girlfriend's cat, telling her to "follow the blood trail to find Tweety," has been sentenced to two years in prison.

Blood was found in the girlfriend's apartment but Tweety was never found.

Scott Allen Atkinson pleaded no contest to two felony charges of animal cruelty and threatening the woman's life. He was sentenced Wednesday.

Prosecutors say the 46-year-old Atkinson killed the black-and-white cat after an argument in October, then he told the woman's daughter he was going to kill her mother.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/aug/1...or-killing-cat/


Only 2 years for the cat? But SCOTUS said it was OK for the mother to kill her unborn or partially born baby.

You got something against cats?

BTW, the threat to the daughter may have influenced the judge as well.

I have nothing against cats. If you start reading for comprehension you would have grasp the idea that I thought a 2 year sentence for a cat was too light.

And further information... killing an unborn or a partially born child is murder and a capital offense no matter what it is called... "a woman's right to choose'... deliberate murder is not a Constitutional Right.

why do you hate democracy?

you'd bring back the coathanger in a minute

maybe yer own daughter....

FYI... we have a REPUBLIC.

You are disgusting! You don't deserve a response!

then FOAD

if yer kid gets knocked up (NOT UNCOMMON)

DO YOU FORCE HER UNWANTED PREGNANCY?

if you do, you've relegated her to the back alley and the coathanger quacks

yer spin is what is disgusting

abortion IS a protected Constitutional right


-----------------------------------

McCain’s comments Wednesday to the Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes that former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge’s pro-abortion rights views wouldn’t necessarily rule him out quickly found their way into the in-boxes of Christian conservatives. For those who have been anxiously awaiting McCain’s pick as a signal of his ideological intentions, there was deep concern that their worst fears about the Arizona senator may be realized.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/14/...in4351720.shtml

An annual survey from the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University in New York reported that parents are clueless when it comes to their teenagers’ behavior.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,404342,00.html

New platform of Herr Fuhrer Goldie's NSDAP Cell:


The complete extermination of black, brown, mixed race and Jewish-owned cats. Only white Aryan cats will be allowed to exist in the National Socialist Future she envisions for us all.






Let's all break out into the Horst Wessel Song!

Oh yeah, what Constimatutional Amendment protects it?

You can't help but laugh at the numb brained lefties and their conclusions. Just be more outrageous than they are and perhaps, maybe, perhaps.. they just might get it.

we been gettin it fer 8 years

The 10th.

You a constimatutional scholar now too Nomarchy? I see you are as "good" at that as you are at economics.

"secure"

moron

According to the Roe decision, most laws against abortion in the United States violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Roe Court deemed abortion a fundamental right under the United States Constitution

The opinion of the Roe Court, written by Justice Harry Blackmun, declined to adopt the district court's Ninth Amendment rationale, and instead asserted that the "right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."

wiki

That's right! Abortion is a private matter! OFF MY BODY YOU SQUIRMING PARASITE!

I don't think you are in any position to be judging the constitutional knowledge of anyone, until you can tell us what the treatment of Cindy Sheehan should properly be under the law.

Hint - lynching isn't it.

What part of LIBERTY doesn't fall under the last part of the 10th, learned gentleman?

Are you a constitutional scholar?

Which part of economics, economic history or anything related do you have expertise in and have demonstrated it here?

You don't know enough not so post silly things such as your claim that all economies have always been market-integrated.

You don't know enough not to write silly things like "natural market forces".

You don't know enough not to think you're explaining a particular kind of organizational form by explaining what may contribute to making large sized organizations efficient and/or necessary.

On EDIT: So, why don't you re-read the 10th (and 9th) Amendment and its (their) history, and try to figure out what it is (they are) about and what it (they) actually entails (entail).

In all candor, off the top of my head I thought the X was the IX and vice-versa. Still, both are relevant as bases for neither the Federal government nor the States having the power to compel an adult woman to bring a pregnancy to term.

For what it's worth, "privacy" is not the best basis for Roe V Wade.

I like "secure in their persons"

An argument can be made abortion is a states' rights issue.

I view it as a states' rights issue, I don't see why people are frothing-at-the-mouth over this issue.

This means in Texas abortion would be illegal, but in New Jersey it would probably be a legal procedure.

States' rights, oh the horror!

Personally, I don't think liberty rights in one's person (including one's own body) are subject to the State's jurisdiction, unless a clear and compelling case can be made. So, strict scrutiny, even wrt to States on this one.

Privacy, smprivacy.

A fetus has legal rights, though. If a women is pregnant, for instance, and she gets killed by a drunk driver, the driver will be charged with a double homicide. A fetus also has inheritance and property rights in the court of law as well, but I digress.

All states have laws in regards to homicide, rape, manslaughter etc. We don't see the federal government clamoring over these easily handled states' issues. Again, from a constitutional standpoint, abortion is a states' right issue (see: 10th Amendment). This is not a privacy issue, as abortion is not covered by the enumerated powers.

The Tenth Amendment is "invisible".

The Legislators in the Third Branch ignore it as they have written law that states that the Tenth Amendment adds absolutely farking nothing to the Constitution.

The Third Branch repealed the Tenth Amendment.

Publishers include the Tenth Amendment for laughs and giggles.