dagblog - Comments for "Clarence Thomas: Political Hack"

No, jackass, and I didn't say

JNagarya — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 04:56:38 +0000

In reply to Clarence Thomas: Political Hack

No, jackass, and I didn't say that.

The Brown court didn't go beyond the question before the court in order to rule on their own objections to the law at issue.

And I'll say it again so you and your fellow anti-Americans totalitarians GET it:

A case is brought to court by PARTIES, usually the plaintiff -- NOT by the judges IN the court. A case presents a question needing "answer". The court applies the facts and law to the question and arrives at a decision -- an "answer" to the question, which "answer" is called the "holding".

In short: if parties take a case to court that asks the color of grass, but doesn't ask the color of the sky, then the court does not go beyond the question about the color of grass.

ACTIVISTS, such as those who usurped Congress' EXCLUSIVE authority to resolve election disputes -- go BEYOND the limits on their role and actions.

ACTIVISTS, such as the SC 5 in the "corporate oppression" case, go beyond the question being asked in order to answer questions NOT asked BY THE PARTIES. In order to provide answers to the ACTIVISTS' questions.

Even the PLAINTIFF in the case -- beyond EXPRESSLY STIPULATING in their filings that they weren't asking ANY OTHER QUESTION than that in the case -- OBJECTED to the SC 5's ACTIVIST action.

In other words: ACTIVISTS will begin with a goal they want to achieve, and then make up the "law" in order to arrive at their goal. That is not only NOT legitimate adjudication, it is INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST. And, being INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST, it is UNETHICAL.

In short, jackass: the judge is to be constrained by and limited to the question in the instance case. Oherwise, as said, there isn't any need for parties; all the JUDGE need do is rule on his own wishes, and as result always arrive at the conclusion the JUDGE wants. That is TYRANNY.

"A system of laws, and NOT of men." -- John Adams.

As for the 14th Amendment, which mandates equality before the law -- and which is why "separate but equal" is UNCONSTITUTIONAL:

1. The US Constitution expresssly stipulates that the US Constitution is the SUPREME Law of the Land. That means that NO law is either EQUAL TO OR ABOVE it.

2. NO branch of the gov't is EQUAL TO OR ABOVE the US Constitution.

3. Constitutional provisions are implemented by means of STATUTES -- which STATUTES are SUBORDINATE to the Constitution.

4. The branches of the gov't are co-EQUAL.

5. The SC's decisions are no more equal to or above the Constitution than are Congress' statutes.

NO branch of the gov't is exempt from either the Constitution and rule of law, or from criticism by ANYONE. The question is whether that anyone -- YOU in this instance -- knows what he's talking about; and or whether he is substituting political ideology -- in this instance racism -- for Constitution and rule of law. The two -- politics and law -- are NOT THE SAME --

"Justice and the rule of law are to be ABOVE politics." -- John Adams.

You say that it "didn't

Glaivester — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 03:31:48 +0000

In reply to Clarence Thomas: Political Hack

You say that it "didn't happen" with Brown because the Court accomplished the ends you wanted. Considering either precedent and the origianl intent of the 14th amendment, there was no way that the 14th amendment banned segregated schools. The court ruled as it did because it wanted to desegregate schools, and decided to keep with an interpretation that accomplished the end it wanted, rather than the law. You don't see it in that case because it accomplished the end that you wanted.

Very poor form, you lie about

Jon Wisby — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 22:10:58 +0000

In reply to Clarence Thomas: Political Hack

Very poor form, you lie about something that is so easily refuted.

"With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections. (Applause.) I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. (Applause.) They should be decided by the American people. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems."

Well, as usual mediamatters

theCleverBulldog — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 21:43:38 +0000

In reply to Clarence Thomas: Political Hack

Well, as usual mediamatters research is flawed. First, in the cases of Reagan and Bush cited, they were either not criticizing the current court, or were not referring to the Supreme court at all. In the case of Harding, his comments were not a criticism of the court but a statement of fact. In none of these case were the judges present. Obama openly declared their ruling to be WRONG, to their face, while they couldn't respond, and sought applause from Congress to show them he was right. That WAS unprecedented.

Whether you stand by it or

Signalman — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 21:31:56 +0000

In reply to Clarence Thomas: Political Hack

Whether you stand by it or not is irrelevant. I simply do not believe you, and you have no way to substantiate your outrageous and unbelievable claim.

Given that, as well as your boorish attitude and posting behavior, I see no reason to give credence to anything you have to say here.

Well, believe what you want.

theCleverBulldog — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 21:28:47 +0000

In reply to Clarence Thomas: Political Hack

Well, believe what you want. I stand by what I said.

" Don't think you know me,

Signalman — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 19:40:50 +0000

In reply to Clarence Thomas: Political Hack

" Don't think you know me, you don't."

I don't think I know you. But I also don't think you've represented yourself honestly. Your comment about making more money in one year than your father made in his entire career smells like bullplop to me, and casts your entire polemic into question thereby.

If you honestly beleive he's

Dorn76 — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 19:38:29 +0000

In reply to Clarence Thomas: Political Hack

If you honestly beleive he's that smart, you're dumber than I thought.

His skin tone seems a little

Jon Wisby — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 15:44:24 +0000

In reply to Clarence Thomas: Political Hack

His skin tone seems a little off.

http://mediamatters.org/resea

Jon Wisby — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 15:41:54 +0000

In reply to Clarence Thomas: Political Hack

http://mediamatters.org/research/201001290019