Naked old grannies. Free naked grannies. Naked grannies. Free naked old grannies videos. Older naked grannies….

Sugar daddy….

mycowardice on October 16, 2008 at 2:29 PM

Wikipedia? Useless as a repository for knowledge.

Your marxist spin falls on deaf ears.

Take a look at this and learn what’s in store for you at the hands of your own marxist masters.

Wake up, mycowardice. You’re being played for a fool. I blame your indoctrination, but maybe you won’t be like those Bezmanov discribes who’s minds are completely unchangable in the face of facts.

Ya been hoodwinked, mycowardice. Bamboozled.

You’re a sucker, mycowardice. And you’re appropriately nicked as well.

techno_barbarian on October 16, 2008 at 2:14 PM

Please go read the article on Wikipedia on the Common Law and tell me what judges are supposed to do.

Statutes are never complete. The legislature can never predict every situation that will arise. Our system has always given a lot of latitude to judges to create jurisprudence (i.e. law) that other judges will have to follow. For example, the tort of negligence which we constantly use is judge made law. This is the basis of the judicial system in America.

That’s where the judges come in a create new law to deal with the facts in front of them.

That’s where you’re totally missing the boat. Judges aren’t supposed to create laws. Their only purpose is to interpret and apply the laws.

Your mindset and misunderstanding of this reality, along with those of your ideological ilk, is precisely the problem.

I know your alinsky/cloward/pliven training convinces you otherwise, but the truth is, you’re just what the soviets used to refer to as a ‘useful tool’ agitating for destabilization of the society you live in to provide an opening for those that would destroy that same society.

You’re a sucker, mycowardice. And you’re appropriately nicked as well.

Debate: Difference of principles on judiciary

Occasionally, and not nearly enought to justify them, presidential
debates highlight actual and honest differences in principle between
candidates so clearly that voters cannot miss the difference……

But “judge decided law” on something this huge is Tyranny of the minority. This isn’t a penalty for spiting on the sidewalk. This is life and death. We have to base big issues on the Constitution and a strict reading of it or it becomes one groups opinion that rules the rest. That is not fair or democratic. That is totalitarian.

petunia on October 16, 2008 at 1:00 PM

But the problem is that what you describe as ‘tyranny of the minority’ has been our system for centuries. Just because it’s being like this doesn’t necessarily mean it’s good, but Obama is simply in line with our current system.

Also, I don’t think it’s totalitarian. Sometimes law are not adapted to deal with new situations and judges come in to fix it. That’s where the judges come in a create new law to deal with the facts in front of them. I encourage you to go read on the common law to see what kind of legal tradition we come from. Law doesn’t mean just statutes. It can also be rules that are never voted by the legislature yet apply to disputes.

It’s sad to see the Common Law implicitly brushed aside. We have always had judge made law. That’s a fundamental part of common law and of our legal system. If you don’t like it, it’s one thing, but to state that Obama would change anything there is simply not true, he would simply continue in our tradition.

mycowardice on October 16, 2008 at 11:41 AM

But “judge decided law” on something this huge is Tyranny of the minority. This isn’t a penalty for spiting on the sidewalk. This is life and death. We have to base big issues on the Constitution and a strict reading of it or it becomes one groups opinion that rules the rest. That is not fair or democratic. That is totalitarian.

That is a good argument as long as we base the selection of judges on qualifications and and ability to stick to the Constitution. As soon as ideological leanings become equal with the Constitution the court becomes a mini-democracy rather than a legal reasoning body.

It then matters not what the law is but which ideological position is most popular with the court. Then this Supreme-Minority votes and decides instead of the people voting and deciding.

Elections are basically polls. And polls are always more accurate which larger numbers of people voting. Obama is wrong. It is important to get as much ideology out of the court as possible. That is what Republicans try to do.

The thing is Roe always looks like a litmus test because Roe was new law totally made up by the court. So if you disagree with Roe you are automatically disqualified by the left. There is a better basis to disagree with Roe and it is Constitutional not ideological.

Therefore, Obama, et. al have to trash the Constitution to up hold Roe. But few ever see it that way.

a. Too small for a nation of this size,
b. Unrepresentative because you couldn’t possibily reflect that great tapestry that is America with only 9 people,
c. Bound to break down into two competing groups with, perhaps, one swing vote who really wields all the power.

With strong majorities in both the House and Senate and a promise to “reach across the aisle” and nominate someone like Arlen Spector (along with four left-wing wackos) he might be able to pull it off. It’s risky, but it would seal the deal for a long, long time to come.

I’m kind of hungry this morning, doesn’t the constitution contain a right to free McDonald’s breakfast? I sure could use some help…

NeoconNews.com on October 16, 2008 at 9:46 AM

Not in so many words, but if you’re craving a McDonald’s breakfast, go ahead and steal one. It’s clearly “unfair” for you to be deprived of something you want, especially since other people are able to get it.

In the event you’re prosecuted, I’m sure an Obama-appointed judge will see the unfairness done to you and remedy it by awarding you millions of dollars (lots more if you’re black or an illegal alien) in damages from McDonalds, that evil corporation founded by greedy white people.

abinitioadinfinitum on October 16, 2008 at 9:43 AM

“King Obama”? I’m only surprised he didn’t write “Emperor of the World Obama” or something equally grandiose. A junior Senator with his own faux presidential seal, his own faux presidential coins, his own faux O-Farce-One, etc. Obama’s narcissism knows no bounds.

God save the U.S.A. from this megalomaniacal fraud.

As usual, Obama hands McCain the weapons that will destroy Obama. Does McCain have the wit to recognize that weapon and to use it.

History is not encouraging.

The decision by the Supreme Court means that damages due to discrimination which occurred 180 days prior to a filing with the EEOC cannot be remedied. That means that if I discover after 5 years of employment that I have been systematically discriminated against, I have no recourse. In particular, if a document or witness surfaces six months and one day after discrimination against me has occurred, I have no recourse.

In other words, employees must now be preemptive in filing suits in order to protect their rights.

Normally, discovery of discrimination tolls the statute of limitations, as does any actual act in a pattern of discrimination which was unknown to the victim. Ledbetter claimed that each paycheck issued to her with a lesser salary than her same-performing male peers was an act of discrimination; the court disagreed, stating that even if the lower pay was the result of discrimination, the act of issuing the paycheck itself was not an act of discrimination.

There isn’t even a close call here — this decision is of the same ilk as Plessy v. Ferguson.

What was at issue here was not only this Supreme Court decision (which I obviously find stupid), but also the stupidity of the Democratic response, which was the “Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act”, which went too far in the other direction, and which the Democrats tried to ram through via a straight up-down vote with no discussion or negotiation.

Of course, Obama could really care less about Lilly — he’s far more interested in “No Child Left Alive” — his replacement for Bush’s education initiative which serves to combat global warming by removing excess population via a policy of previable postnatal abortion. He needs to pack the Supremes properly for this issue.

I think that it’s important for judges to understand that if a woman is out there trying to raise a family, trying to support her family, and is being treated unfairly, then the court has to stand up, if nobody else will. And that’s the kind of judge that I want.

Sounds like Obama doesn’t understand the difference between a Justice and the Justice League.