[an0n]

It'd be incredibly ironic if they did.

[Liberator]

I don't support this, but I understand that this is a result of rulings of certain members of the Court that less and less are being based on law and more and more based on Ideology and an Agenda to advance that Ideology through the court system because they can't get it through Congress, though they've tried for 35+ years.

[Ace]

Originally posted by Liberator
I don't support this, but I understand that this is a result of rulings of certain members of the Court that less and less are being based on law and more and more based on Ideology and an Agenda to advance that Ideology through the court system because they can't get it through Congress, though they've tried for 35+ years.

Oh right, EVAL LIBERAL SCOTUS!!!111oneoneone

By the way, great job turning the civil rights movement into a secret conspiracy. You've earned a tin foil hat for that one.

It is a result of congress trying to expand its own power, just as the executive branch has been since practically the beginning.

[Hippo]

Originally posted by Unknown Target
So any news on when this is going to get voted on?

Well chances are, its already been pased, sinc eit was brought up on march 9th...

[Grey Wolf]

Probably was ignored by the vast majority of Congress, and died in commitee.

[Rictor]

Congress is asked to vote on a law that would take power ouit of the hands of the Supreme Court, and give it to them? And this is not a conflict of interest....why?

[Bobboau]

nothing to be worried about yet, this bill is just bull, it would need a constitutional ammendment for this sort of thing to go into effect (unless that's what there proposeing)

and quit useing that stupid "nEo-c0nzz!!" buzz word, it isn't neo-cons doing this it's the 'con's, period, it pisses me off when someone calls an 80 year old republican a neo-con when they are quite clearly a paleo-con.

[Rictor]

well, actually the current administration and its supporters are not conservatives in the traditional sense. Small government, fiscal responsibility, a restrained foreign policy etc. And yeah, the stupid buzzword "neocons" is getting on my nerves too. Its a convenient way for people to think "its those bad, bad neocons that have perverted our otherwise glorious nation, if we get rid of Wolfowitz and Perle, everything will be OK again"

[Reez]

Kinda stupid why they would try to make this sort of bill pass. They might as well just made the bill say "disband the Supreme Court" and pay less people. Regardless, it's a stupid bill, made by stupid people, for stupid reasons

[Mr. Vega]

Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Couldn't the Supreme Court rule this law unconstitutional?

Yes they can.

[Corsair]

I emailed my congressman. Good lord, what's America coming to?

[Hippo]

Originally posted by Corsair
I emailed my congressman. Good lord, what's America coming to?

That makes 2 of us!

[q]Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Couldn't the Supreme Court rule this law unconstitutional? [/q]

Yes, but if it did pass, and then the Supreme court tried to rescend it, they could veto the rescending... Its sortof one of those things, that if it happens, it CAN'T be undone...

[Rampage]

People, the two party system is there for a reason, and so is the electoral college.  Without it, the asses of politics (Democrats) would ALWAYS win.

If you guys really hate America's two party system, why not just move to Europe (or stay there if you're already there)?  Exactly.  Don't live here, then.  I'm a strong nationalist and a staunch Christian profamily conservative who wants a small federal government.

If I display my true political colors, you bleeding hearts would call me a neo-Nazi.  But I'm not racist, so - there.

Hey, that gives me an idea...

[Rictor]

thats what I always hear, "if you don't like it, move"

but if you actually love America, you want to stay there. There is nothing wrong with trying to improve your country, becuase it belongs to you as much as it does to anyone else. Now, I don't fall in to that category, because I don't live in America, but I'm talking in general/..

and if you favour small government, I can't see how you could possibly support the Dubya adminstration. He has presided over the biggest government in many, many years.

[Rampage]

Originally posted by Rictor

and if you favour small government, I can't see how you could possibly support the Dubya adminstration. He has presided over the biggest government in many, many years.

I know.  I don't like Dubya, as you so gently put it.  He promised small government, like all Republicans do, but he made it even BIGGER!  AHHHH!

[vyper]

To put this bluntly, stop those ****ers before they run your country any more.

[Rictor]

It ironic, the Republicans are now supporting big government, and the Democrats are now supporting a hawkish foreign policy. Its like they're taking stuff from each other's playbook.

vyper: kind of hard to do that when its a two part system. This tradition is so entrenched in the psyche that its going to take a huge effort for any third party to even make a dent. Kerry doesn't hold much promise fro the future, especially when he's strongly considering having John McCain, a Republican as his running mate. I mean, that unheard of....its insane.

and he's calling it a, get this, a "unity government"....

[vyper]

Solution: Reform one of the existing two parties. e.g. the democrats. From what I read they're so screwed up and lacking in ideology that a completely new direction and leadership would be perfect to unite them under.

[Kazan]

Grey Wolf: it hasn't died yet

Liberator: So supporting people's civil and human rights based upon Constitutional and International law is "ideology" now - Sorry, you're the ideologue, not them

Bobboau, Rictor: "NeoCon" = NeoConservative, it's a very specific political term from the study of Political Science, it's very far from a 'buzzword' - you will see professional academics using the term on a regular basis, the laymen picked it up from them.


Vyper: I would love a party that upholds the constitution, upholds human rights and civil rights - but doesn't want to go socialistic (and No, the Libertarians don't count because they're idea of upholding rights is beyond naive, it's destructive)

[Bobboau]

realy, I just heard everyone on the left useing it in the same fashion as rush uses the phrase 'bleeding hear liberals', perhaps there is a valid oragin to it, but that still doesn't mean everyone you don't like can be gushed into the new bad-person-word of the week.

and what's wrong with libertarians!?
other than there disagreement with you'r authoratarian no smoaking pollocies