Yes you did, which is why I am grateful to you for reaffirming what I said by your explanation on how one can change what Congress or the president does but cannot really change what the Court does.

Your further comment about the Court ruling on what comes before it doesn't matter, because it only takes one or two rulings to illustrate its virtually unfettered power, regardless of how the case on which it ruled got there.

Aww- here I was enjoying the interaction with your contrarian views, for you know, Devil's Advocate sake. As soon as I get ironic- it hurts your feelings... I thought you were stronger than that.

Huh? My feelings are certainly not hurt. It takes much more than that to hurt my feelings.

So, so, so wrong again... if the issue is never brought before the court- it cannot rule on said matter. It is the ultimate bitch of the American system.

How can you ignore the pen of Executive Privilege so easily- are you still just in denial of President Obama?

Then you truly do have a lot to learn. A look back at some of its worst rulings of the last 40 years is a good start; and it is these rulings that have had a greater effect than most of anything the Congress or President has done on issues related to the rulings.

It is a simple but irrefutable--and sad--fact that at the present time, the Court is the single, most powerful branch of the federal government. This, I'm sure, just gives Justice Kennedy the warm fuzzies.



And who's in denial of Obama? I'm not an opponent of his. I didn't vote for John Methuselah. I don't dislike Obama. I find him interesting and fascinating. I also like many of his cabinet appointments.

It's just that the "you're against us" part comes so easily and often from you. That's fine, you can be a contrarian all you want. This is not the only board I participate in a P&R forum on and I get a huge dose of the "against us part" with the click of the mouse or turning on the news, radio, reading a newspaper or magazine. It's kind of nice to enjoy commaradie every now and then with like minded people. I try my best not to go after anyone personally and directly that disagrees with me.

When choosing to play devil's advocate, it's wise to maintain a thick skin. Or maybe ease up on the gas before you get fed up. Or if you get fed up, don't complain about it constantly.

Me? I'm just throwing out arguments for people to think about. I'm not the one who's accusing others of relegating people to second class status or lumping everyone else here into some political category.

I pride myself in having a circle of friends who are of varied backgrounds, ideologies, religions, etc., and I'm known for never labeling them as people here so easily like to label those who dare to even suggest there's something beyond the Forbidden Zone.

Damn! That woman is HUGE!

And her voice is even more huge. Love her!

Oh, I'm certainly not criticizing her voice, that's for sure, but she certainly blew up!

After 8 years of this Imperial President and his VP, I think it's refutable that the judicial branch is the most powerful. The Exectuive Branch 1) ordered the spying on Americans in violation of American law and the Constitution; 2) ordered the illegal detention of Americans and non-Americans in violation of American law and the Constitution; 3) repeatedly over 8 years issued signing statements ignoring the Constitutional powers of Congress or various legal precedents; 4) repeatedly over the last 8 years destroyed government property in violation of the law and judicial rulings; 5) repeatedly violated other laws (propaganda laws, laws about lying to Congress, politicization of federal agencies, use of federal agencies and officers for campaign purposes, etc.); 6) had a VP who made the outrageous argument that he was a 4th branch, subject neither to the constraints on the Executive, nor of Congress; etc. Neither the Congress nor the judiciary provided much of a check on the Executive Branch, which arrogated tremendous power to itself, and even DEFIED judicial rulings when it saw fit. The Executive Branch under LaWless and Cheney totally tipped the balance in favor of that branch, to the detriment of the country and the world.

As "powerful" as you believe Bush/Cheney were, some of that blame has to go to Congress, who went along with many of the administration's requests.

The judicial branch still holds the power, because as we see, their rulings have not been countered, but a new administration has come along with changes being made.

Holy cow! All this back & forth about the judiciary and the people's will.

Funny. There was a lot of dialogue about gay marriage and race, but no one mentioned Loving vs. the Commonwealth of Virginia. You know. The Supreme Court decision in 1967 that struck down the will of the people of Virginia who said it was illegal for a black person to marry a white person?

Yeah, Loving and his wife should have moved to one of the other 34 states that allowed it at the time.

Like the people in the 60's and early 70's who were fed up with anti-Vietnam war protests used to say, "America. Love it or leave it."

By the way, the Supreme Court and similar lesser bodies are there to, among other things, ensure that the tyranny of the masses, not the minorities as stated, doesn't run riot over everyone's rights through putting some issues before the voters.

I didn't realize that every potential law is presented before the Supreme Court and that they ruled on it??!!? My mistake Crew Chief. I was under the belief that before the Supreme Court heard anything that it was the end means to multiple appeals... I was under the impression that the Supreme Court was simply the ultimate court of appeals.... Sorry that I was soooo soooo wrong

Let me pray to the Almighty Crew Chief- the man of no wrong, the man of complete impotence- I mean omnipotence.... oh thank god you are only self- labeled.

The sad thing is CC- that you actually do believe that because the Constitution does not directly address gay marriage, that you are comfortable in a legal sense, that gays are unequal citizens. Contrarian view or not, you do accept this.

The most moderate Justice in recent history was Justice O'Connor. She was a true moderate in the sense of being most balanced in her opinions. If you think Kennedy is a liberal, then what do you think of her? Or perhaps you sense that Scalia and Thomas are moderates?



God bless you Fantomas!



Perhaps CC lives in a world where he would love for Drunk Negro Face Cookies to be the norm...

Oh SCTrojan you know I wasn't talking about you. Its obvious that you have the same wit. Its just that when I have disagreements with those who are a bit more moderate or right leaning, I appreciate the ones who actually back it up with stuff rather than just drivvle. You know I got your back babe. You make valid points as well.

Jeez! Sometimes I feel like I'm talking to a wall. Did you even READ my previous posts where I clearly stated that when the People enact a law that is in clear violation of the Constitution, as was the law in the Loving case, the judiciary has no choice but to do its job and strike the law. That's not a tyranny of a minority or any other entity. Why is that so difficult for you to comprehend?

This is to be distinguished from a judiciary that strikes down a law that the Constitution does not address at all. What the Constitution does say is, essentially, that what it doesn't address is left to the States and the People (see amendments 9 and 10).




I never stated that. As usual, you misconstrued what was clearly said.



At least you finally admitted it.

Merci.

Would you two like to get a room?

Only if you join us.

So, has everyone seen the 1,474 megapixal pic of the Inauguration? You can do amazing things with it by panning around and zooming in. Just give it a few seconds.

Link

Ha! You wish!




That's huge. Who knew you're such a size queen?

LOL! Gotta love your ballsiness.

Leave my balls out of it. They're big enough, thank-you-very-much.

Pix pleeze!

Don't ask, don't tell.

But you just told.

No, I commented.