 |
|
12-20-2007, 06:07 PM
|
 |
Political Mastermind
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,494
|
|
Show me where Bush has preserved the rights of the Supreme
Court to be a third branch of our government who defends the constitution and not redefines it...
|
12-21-2007, 12:25 AM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 10,828
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cookie Parker
Court to be a third branch of our government who defends the constitution and not redefines it...
|
Um ....... on the back cover of my pet goat.
he scribbled something about goats & eating paper...I think it was originally on hemp too.
__________________
The crows seemed to be calling his name, thought Caw.
- Jack Handy
|
12-21-2007, 12:40 AM
|
|
Political Mastermind
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 1,046
|
|
I appreciate your efforts, Cookie. Too much anger and frust. to make lite.  |
12-21-2007, 07:49 PM
|
|
Political Mastermind
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,494
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by marmalade6
I appreciate your efforts, Cookie. Too much anger and frust. to make lite. |
And sad news is, no one will understand that until it's too late... |
12-22-2007, 09:39 AM
|
|
Political Junkie
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 147
|
|
“What do you mean by that?” said the Caterpillar sternly. “Explain yourself!”
- Lewis Carroll, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, Ch. 5 (1865) |
12-23-2007, 07:47 PM
|
|
Political Novice
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3
|
|
"Political Mastermind"??? Yeah, really.
There is NO obligation for the President, nor anyone else, to preserve the "rights" of the US courts, Supreme or otherwise. If anyone has such a "right" it would be the specific court concerned.
FYI, each branch of the US federal government is EQUAL, therefore neither can be responsible for the other. IF one is superior it would be the Supreme Court due to its authority to decide, directly, if the action(s) of either other branch is legal.
THINK first. Post second, if at all.
|
12-23-2007, 07:49 PM
|
 |
ONEWHITEDUCK
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 21,412
|
|
ANOTHER COOKIE PARKER CUNT LICKER
What Is A Diest :-(
__________________
If you don't KNOW where you come from...you WILL wind up going nowhere.
That goes for Ideas, institutions as well as individuals :-I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUncnWxjUXM
^You CAN Handle The Truth - TRANCE Form America - 3of7
PSI TECH INVESTIGATIONS and LAW ENFORCEMENT
~777~ "THE AWACS ANGEL CODE"
|
12-24-2007, 02:18 PM
|
|
Political Mastermind
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 1,046
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CincyJim
"Political Mastermind"??? Yeah, really.
There is NO obligation for the President, nor anyone else, to preserve the "rights" of the US courts, Supreme or otherwise. If anyone has such a "right" it would be the specific court concerned.
FYI, each branch of the US federal government is EQUAL, therefore neither can be responsible for the other. IF one is superior it would be the Supreme Court due to its authority to decide, directly, if the action(s) of either other branch is legal.
THINK first. Post second, if at all.
|
Don't you think Cookie's thread might be in response to the courts recent decisions which carry the appearance of political influence.
Forinstance, recent states and supreme court decisions redefining Eminent Domain. Do you believe the intent of E.D. is to seize private property for private development on behalf of private developers?
Hasn't this "fudging" of previously assumed protections occurred under the watch of Bush?
Welcome to AWE, by the way.
|
12-24-2007, 02:58 PM
|
|
Political Mastermind
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 1,046
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by marmalade6
Don't you think Cookie's thread might be in response to the courts recent decisions which carry the appearance of political influence.
Forinstance, recent states and supreme court decisions redefining Eminent Domain. Do you believe the intent of E.D. is to seize private property for private development on behalf of private developers?
Hasn't this "fudging" of previously assumed protections occurred under the watch of Bush?
Welcome to AWE, by the way.
|
CINCY JIM, please respond. |
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
 Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
