Abortion

[Martin Hash]

If I put on a black robe it's okay, though, right?

That and passing The Bar. (How's it going BTW, you studying law & all?)

[Speaker to Animals]

If I put on a black robe it's okay, though, right?

That and passing The Bar. (How's it going BTW, you studying law & all?)

I doubt I would have trouble passing the bar. The problem is that I would never be selected to be a judge since I don't particularly care about the politics of fucking with peoples' lives like you apparently do. Also, law is boring. I'd rather sit in a room writing code.

I retain my right to make my own moral judgments, thanks. I don't need you or some oligarchy of judges to decide that for me.

[Martin Hash]

I doubt I would have trouble passing the bar.

OMG! The hubris.

p.s. No wonder...

[Speaker to Animals]

No need to insult. If you have an argument, then offer it. The Constitution is pretty clear on the enumerated power of government branches. The judiciary obviously has no power to tell me what is and is not moral. Get real.

[Martin Hash]

No need to insult. If you have an argument, then offer it. The Constitution is pretty clear on the enumerated power of government branches. The judiciary obviously has no power to tell me what is and is not moral. Get real.

You're just pissed because you can't force your morals on everyone.

[Speaker to Animals]

No need to insult. If you have an argument, then offer it. The Constitution is pretty clear on the enumerated power of government branches. The judiciary obviously has no power to tell me what is and is not moral. Get real.

You're just pissed because you can't force your morals on everyone.

LOL, okay Martin.


History time!

Did the judiciary end slavery? No.
Did the judiciary give women equal rights? No.
Did the judiciary end Jim Crow? No.

I could go on and on. Have fun petitioning your black-robed masters to not violate your liberties, Martin. It's worked out so well in the past.

[Fife]

[Speaker to Animals]

Hey, what do you know. The great moralist, Roger "Blacks are Animals" Taney.

There's a guy to whom we should all be ecstatic to abrogate our consciences. Let's all be on the "right side of history" and let the judges decide what is moral and immoral for us, just like our forefathers did in the 1850s! Judges don't ever get this shit wrong.

[Speaker to Animals]

I am curious where this concept of judges becoming the moral arbiters for all Americans began. It's almost like the radical secularists and atheist types love to envision a judiciary as if judges act as a kind of materialistic God.

The Constitution obviously not only fails to enumerate this power to the judiciary, but explicitly states that non-enumerated powers are reserved from the federal government. What kind of train-wreck world view must one inhabit where this shit seems like a good idea? I mean.. history shows just how fucking awful the judiciary is at getting the big issues right -- as in practically never.

Every major moral victory in American history happened in the legislative branch. Every one. Conversely, in each case, those who opposed the moral change attempted to stymie and undermine it through the judiciary. Every time.

Talking about the right side of history.. Who exactly do you think you are moralizing to people while you essentially just rehashed the arguments of 19th century slave lords who kept their "rights" intact through judicial demagoguery?

[Fife]