Comments on: They Must Be Democrats

By: kevin

kevin — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 01:53:39 +0000

ROFL!!!!!!

By: el jefe

el jefe — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 01:46:04 +0000

“Things are nuts at the house right now, but when it all settles down, I will get my hands some ….most excellent sausage. Actually I think I will get several kinds, bratwurst, kielbasa, Italian sweet or Spicy.”

“Don’t forget the Schnitzengruben.”

“I might not be a winner but I too would like a wiener”

ROFL! this discussion certainly took a turn, it sounds private and craig-like. I’ll let you all be.

By: ACTivist

ACTivist — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 20:40:25 +0000

You’re right, Jack.

Jacob,
I might not be a winner but I too would like a wiener….and wine. I take it you love Brian more then the rest of your buds, huh?

By: Jack

Jack — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 04:36:02 +0000

Don't forget the Schnitzengruben.

By: jacob

jacob — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 04:15:18 +0000

Brian,
Deal. Things are nuts at the house right now, but when it all settles down, I will get my hands some some very, very good root beer (diet) and some most excellent sausage. Actually I think I will get several kinds, bratwurst, kielbasa, Italian sweet or Spicy. You might have to tolerate some of the other characters having beer other than root.

By: Jack

Jack — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 03:47:44 +0000

“The other 40% are either socialistic atheists or the members of equality loudoun.”

You’re being redundant.

By: Brian Withnell

Brian Withnell — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 03:29:51 +0000

Jacob,

You can buy me a diet root beer, and a smoked sausage.

By: ACTivist

ACTivist — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 21:03:21 +0000

That’s funny. The jury has to be fair minded but the judges don’t. The other 40% are either socialistic atheists or the members of equality loudoun.

The constitution is a “build it” manual. Shortcut it by skipping steps or not reading it end to end, your project looks like the first teleportation trial with a baboon in the movie “The Fly”-inside out and all screwed up. The problem being that people feel that the constitution can only be interpreted by lawyers. It was desined to be read and understood by common man; just like the 10 Commandments! Should make the SCOTUS job real easy,no?

By: jacob

jacob — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 12:58:36 +0000

“What I might like to point out is that the SCOTUS ought not to think about fairness and justice, but what the constitution says.”
DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING,
Step right up sir, WE HAVE A WINNER!!!
That is the right answer!!!! Brian, have a cigar and a beer. hmmmm. You don’t drink or smoke. OK, I’ll have the beer and the cigar, you watch.

What is ‘fair’ to some is not to others. The written word of the constitution is a far less subjective artifice that what is ‘fair’. If the court would stick to interpreting the law, through the lens of the constitution, instead of forays into social engineering the country would benefit.

By: Brian Withnell

Brian Withnell — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 04:40:01 +0000

What I might like to point out is that the SCOTUS ought not to think about fairness and justice, but what the constitution says. If they base what they decide on the constitution, they do what they are instructed by the constitution. If they think that the constitution is not fair and just, there is a mechanism for changing the constitution, and it does not involve the court.

The judges of courts should always be studying the constitution and the law in their decisions, there is a mechanism for having “fairness and justice” outside that path, even if the constitution is too slow in changing. It is called the jury. Because trial by jury is a right, then juries can nullify a law if they all return not guilty any time someone is tried for breaking the law. A judge could instruct a jury to bring a guilty verdict, but if they bring a not guilty it stands. Jury nullification is often presented as “not an option” by judges, but judges have no way to force a jury to convict if the jury decides they will not convict.

By: el jefe

el jefe — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 03:46:36 +0000

lol…d’oh. thanks for the correction. now i understand my sat discrepancy. i meant to say more at the forefront of the mind. anyway, yeah, bad question.

By: Jack

Jack — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 03:35:02 +0000

“this may have made ‘fairness and justice’ more salient to some, not more important.”

Uh, check the first synonym for salient: important.

Anyway, we can agree that it was a poorly worded question.

By: el jefe

el jefe — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 02:57:39 +0000

sure, but there is often conflicting interpretations and precedent. this may have made “fairness and justice” more salient to some, not more important. plus, it could be spun that most of the population thinks that “justice and fairness” are important not qualities in supreme court justices. it’s a bs quesiton.

By: Jack

Jack — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 02:34:27 +0000

El Jefe, that is still a problem. The Supreme Court is supposed to rule based on the Constitution. If a law is unfair, but constitutional, then it needs to be changed by the legislature, not by the judiciary.

By: Jack

Jack — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 02:32:20 +0000

David?! No, no, no, no, no. It’s supposed to be Jonathan that comes in here trolling.

Never heard of Dominionists. But then, I do owe you thanks for putting me on to Focus on the Family, so I’ll look up Dominionists now.