NationStates Jolt Archive

The court has been "stacked" with liberal judges before (that's how we got Row). The checks and balances really do work in that if judicial activism gets out of control, Congress checks it with legislation targeted to remedy the offending Supreme Court decision. If Congress oversteps its bounds, the Supreme court checks it with a Constitutional Question decision. What drives the Congressmen making the decisions? We do!

Besides, Congress is not going to remain Republican. The pendulum will swing back as we keep moving on our wobbly path to the future.

Um, no. That Roe is a result of liberal court-stacking is absurd.

Roe v. Wade (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/410/113.html ), 410 US 113 (1973) was a 7-2 decision.

BLACKMUN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C. J., and DOUGLAS, BRENNAN, STEWART, MARSHALL, and POWELL, JJ., joined.

WHITE, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which REHNQUIST, J., joined.

So the majority, who they were appointed by, and when:

Blackmun, Harry A. Nixon June 9, 1970
Burger, Warren Earl Nixon June 23, 1969
Douglas, William Orville Roosevelt, F. April 17, 1939
Brennan, William J., Jr. Eisenhower October 16, 1956
Stewart, Potter Eisenhower October 14, 1958
Marshall, Thurgood Johnson, L. October 2, 1967
Powell, Lewis F., Jr. Nixon January 7, 1972

The dissent:

White, Byron Raymond Kennedy April 16, 1962
Rehnquist, William H. Nixon January 7, 1972

So the majority was 5 Republican appointees and 2 Democrat appointees. The dissent was 1 Republican and 1 Democrat.

Were does the liberal court-stacking come in?

If you are a "distance runner" then I am a 7' tall negro basketball player, with a donkey dick.
"Negro"? So much for your claims of not being racist.

Please explain. Perhaps I am not fully understanding the system of checks and balances.
Basically, checks and balances are abilities. The president can check the legislature by vetoing a bill. The legislature can check the president by overriding the veto. A conservative Supreme Court won't change these abilities. Certain laws won't be declared unconstitutional, granted, but this dosen't mean that the checks and balances have been tampered with. Ideally, if the government becomes too conservative for the majority of populace, liberals would take power in the next election. But the system is more or less working as it was intended to. The people elect the President and Congresspeople who put in the judges. If the people elected conservatives, thats what the judges will likely be.

The clouds part, the sun shines and it alllll becomes clear. Only one cat appropriates the identity of figures like, say, and end times preacher, uses the phrase 'pencil neck geek', makes claims like-
(Have all your limbs?) and links this image (http://www.besmark.com/minstrel.jpg) in every incarnation.

So, you're back. Now we know...

Who is this?

"Negro"? So much for your claims of not being racist.
Ask him about his porno career, or his private detective job, or if he loves it when a plan comes together...;)

Who is this?
Third generation troll. I think his last incarnation ate it before you came on. He's really of no consiquence, especially if he can't hide it any better.

Ask him about his porno career, or his private detective job, or if he loves it when a plan comes together...;)
I figured his identity out when you posted that earlier message. Pity no one bothered to ban his IP.

I figured his identity out when you posted that earlier message. Pity no one bothered to ban his IP.

Not like that would really matter.

Third generation troll. I think his last incarnation ate it before you came on. He's really of no consiquence, especially if he can't hide it any better.

Try 8th. ;)

BTW why hide it when you are proud?

Um, no. That Roe is a result of liberal court-stacking is absurd.

Roe v. Wade (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/410/113.html ), 410 US 113 (1973) was a 7-2 decision.

BLACKMUN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C. J., and DOUGLAS, BRENNAN, STEWART, MARSHALL, and POWELL, JJ., joined.

WHITE, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which REHNQUIST, J., joined.

So the majority, who they were appointed by, and when:

Blackmun, Harry A. Nixon June 9, 1970
Burger, Warren Earl Nixon June 23, 1969
Douglas, William Orville Roosevelt, F. April 17, 1939
Brennan, William J., Jr. Eisenhower October 16, 1956
Stewart, Potter Eisenhower October 14, 1958
Marshall, Thurgood Johnson, L. October 2, 1967
Powell, Lewis F., Jr. Nixon January 7, 1972

The dissent:

White, Byron Raymond Kennedy April 16, 1962
Rehnquist, William H. Nixon January 7, 1972

So the majority was 5 Republican appointees and 2 Democrat appointees. The dissent was 1 Republican and 1 Democrat.

Were does the liberal court-stacking come in?

One thing your facts are not taking into account: The term liberal has traditionally meant "for change" and conservative "for status quo." Reagan is the one who applied the word "liberal" to the democrats and it has been a Republican chant ever since. Until Reagan, the parties often swung back and forth between conservativism and liberalism over time.

As for my use of the word "stacking," I was simply quoting another's post. By "stacked" I merely meant that there were more liberal judges on the court than conservatives. There would have to be. Liberal judges believe in broad interpretation of the constitution where conservatives narrowly construe the wording of the constitution. The Row decision could only have been decided by a Court that took a braod view of constitutional interpretation because it was based on a right to privacy not clearly enunciated by the text of the Constitution itself.

Try 8th. ;)

BTW why hide it when you are proud?
8th? Oh god, is the person who had dead generals for his name you?

Row

Why do you keep spelling it that way? What am I missing?

Why do you keep spelling it that way? What am I missing?


You're right: Roe - my bad - it's Friday and my brain is fried after a week of intense and complicated depos.

8th? Oh god, is the person who had dead generals for his name you?


Best known by me as Johnny Wadd

8th? Oh god, is the person who had dead generals for his name you?

Nope.

Ahhh! But Bush isn't going to go on Ideology unless you know something that isn't getting reported.

You mean like his past history?

Best known by me as Johnny Wadd


Johnny Wadd died in the 80's. How could he post on this silly website?

Why do you keep spelling it that way? What am I missing?


I wonder if it was a Freudian slip?

I wonder if it was a Freudian slip?

I was trying too hard. :rolleyes: I kept thinking of "Row", as in a "big fight". :D

I was trying too hard. :rolleyes: I kept thinking of "Row", as in a "big fight". :D


Yep - probably Freudian. It certainly was, is and will be a big fight.

One thing your facts are not taking into account: The term liberal has traditionally meant "for change" and conservative "for status quo." Reagan is the one who applied the word "liberal" to the democrats and it has been a Republican chant ever since. Until Reagan, the parties often swung back and forth between conservativism and liberalism over time.

As for my use of the word "stacking," I was simply quoting another's post. By "stacked" I merely meant that there were more liberal judges on the court than conservatives. There would have to be. Liberal judges believe in broad interpretation of the constitution where conservatives narrowly construe the wording of the constitution. The Row decision could only have been decided by a Court that took a braod view of constitutional interpretation because it was based on a right to privacy not clearly enunciated by the text of the Constitution itself.

Meh.

So, by "liberal judge" you mean any that would have voted for the majority in Roe. :rolleyes:

And by "stacked" you simply mean that a majority is currently on the Court.

So the Roe Court was "stacked" with "liberals" by definition.

Beautiful circular reasoning. :rolleyes:

Normally, the terms court-stacking or court-packing refer to attempts to "stack" or "pack" the Court with judges of a particular bent. That was the context used by the poster to which you were responding.

And your simplistic liberal/conservative definitions for judges don't match either political philosophy or judicial philosophy defintions very well.

Just admit you were wrong.

Just admit you were wrong.


Just admit that you are a pussy who can't handle it. Do you feel tough now that you reported me, again? Fruits like you don't know what is good.

Just admit that you are a pussy who can't handle it. Do you feel tough now that you reported me, again? Fruits like you don't know what is good.
And here we have a specimen of the rare wild Dumbass, engaging in its courtship ritual of looking like a total idiot. This is why it is so rare.

Just admit that you are a pussy who can't handle it. Do you feel tough now that you reported me, again? Fruits like you don't know what is good.

"Stick and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."

I knew there was something wrong with your posts. Gotcha.

OK you three, take it to a different thread. Leave this for those of us who care about Judicial nominees!

And here we have a specimen of the rare wild Dumbass, engaging in its courtship ritual of looking like a total idiot. This is why it is so rare.
I was going to say we should take the HWA/JWadd battle here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=429441) out of respect of Cornileu who really did try to keep this on topic and civil, but it looks like Fris has already taken action there. But still, we should return this thread to it's regularly scheduled program.

I was going to say we should take the HWA/JWadd battle here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=429441) out of respect of Cornileu who really did try to keep this on topic and civil, but it looks like Fris has already taken action there. But still, we should return this thread to it's regularly scheduled program.

I thank you CTOAN! :)

OK you three, take it to a different thread. Leave this for those of us who care about Judicial nominees!

With all due respect, I've been posting on topic. I only went off in 2 posts -- one to try to prevent a flame-fest (like you) and one just now to tell JW I'm not impressed. In the meantime, I've been discussing judicial appointments.

With all due respect, I've been posting on topic. I only went off in 2 posts -- one to try to prevent a flame-fest (like you) and one just now to tell JW I'm not impressed. In the meantime, I've been discussing judicial appointments.

True true you have! And quite civily too :)

A rarity when you and I are in the same thread :D

True true you have! And quite civily too :)

A rarity when you and I are in the same thread :D

*excuse quick further hijack*

Actually, although I disagree with you just as much, I've been impressed by your civility and maturity lately. :) (I hope you take that as a compliment. That is how I took your statement. :) )

Now, back to our regular programing.

Bush is EVIL. He'll appoint Satan!!! :D

Note that there have been conservative judges appointed to the bench who turned around after being appointed and either became moderates or in the case of one of them turned liberal. So, I wouldn't worry about Roe vs. Wade being over turned just yet! :)

Meh.

So, by "liberal judge" you mean any that would have voted for the majority in Roe. :rolleyes:

And by "stacked" you simply mean that a majority is currently on the Court.

So the Roe Court was "stacked" with "liberals" by definition.

Beautiful circular reasoning. :rolleyes:

Normally, the terms court-stacking or court-packing refer to attempts to "stack" or "pack" the Court with judges of a particular bent. That was the context used by the poster to which you were responding.

And your simplistic liberal/conservative definitions for judges don't match either political philosophy or judicial philosophy defintions very well.

Just admit you were wrong.

Uh No. You obviously don't know much about Constitutional Interpretation.

*excuse quick further hijack*

No I won't excuse it! :D

Actually, although I disagree with you just as much, I've been impressed by your civility and maturity lately. :) (I hope you take that as a compliment. That is how I took your statement. :) )

Thank you my friend. I do try to be civil. :)

Now, back to our regular programing.

Bush is EVIL. He'll appoint Satan!!! :D

Liberals are EVIL! I want to continue to worship God :D

Note that there have been conservative judges appointed to the bench who turned around after being appointed and either became moderates or in the case of one of them turned liberal. So, I wouldn't worry about Roe vs. Wade being over turned just yet! :)

Yep.

5 of 7 Justices in the majority in Roe were Republican-appointed. And at least Blackmun, Burger, and Powell were supposed to be conservatives.

It works the other way as well. White, who dissented in Roe, was a Kennedy appointee that many thought was too liberal.

Sorry - guys - don't mean to throw a post and run - but gotta go home. It's Friday.

Uh No. You obviously don't know much about Constitutional Interpretation.

Um. I know plenty about it.

From your depo comment, I assume you are a lawyer. So am I. I clerked for a US Court of Appeal. (I know that could be a lie. I am not appealing to myself as an authority. I'm just saying that dog won't hunt with me.)

EDIT: I'd love to hear your theory on where I showed ignorance of Constitutional Interpretation. I understand your broad/narrow dichotomy, but that doesn't neatly match liberal/conservative. That also doesn't explain your circular reasoning and strange use of "stacked."

One thing your facts are not taking into account: The term liberal has traditionally meant "for change" and conservative "for status quo." *snip*

I just realized that under this definition any Justice or appointee that now wishes to overturn Roe is a "liberal." And those that would protect the existing precedent are "conservative."

I agree in the very broad sense that those are traditional, loose uses of the terms. But they don't really have much meaning at that level past the 18th Century. That certainly isn't how the terms are used in modern politics or in reference to Justices or judicial philosophy.

Im superman. Since this is the internet you can not disprove this. Therefore i can be whatever i want to be if it bolsters my arguement. Im also a billionaire and own 4/5ths of the moon.


I just want people to think about this before they credit anybody with being knowledgible in anything they are talking about on here.

I wish the American government luck that it doesnt implode from all the lies and slandering that will occur within the next couple months. Because Allah forgive somebody actually be affermed on merit and not political idealolgy. This is truely the weakest area of the american system of government. The laws of the land are decided by a select few all with political leanings and not an unbias viewpoint on cases.

Im superman. Since this is the internet you can not disprove this. Therefore i can be whatever i want to be if it bolsters my arguement. Im also a billionaire and own 4/5ths of the moon.

I just want people to think about this before they credit anybody with being knowledgible in anything they are talking about on here.

I thought I made it rather clear that I was not appealing to myself as an authority and expressly said I could be lying.

I think you'd find almost everyone who has seen many of my posts will agree I am, in fact, a lawyer. Some would use it as perjorative, however. ;) :D

My point was that if Bahamamamma wishes to claim I don't understand theories of Constitutional intepretation or jurisprudence, she will have to do better than merely assert it. I know that isn't true as a general statement. Many others in this thread know enough about me that they won't believe that. The assertion needs to actually be supported with logic and/or evidence.

Happy?

EDIT: To be crystal frickin' clear, I don't claim that anyone should give any credence or weight to my opinions on the grounds that I assert I am a lawyer or that I actually am a lawyer or on any other basis that the logic or evidence that I present.

In some discussions, it can help if each person recognizes the familiarity of the other with a subject. If two people on these forums recognize they are both lawyers, they know they share certain base knowledge and can communicate more directly. My statements were intended for Bahamamamma. She may or may not choose to believe them.

Im superman. Since this is the internet you can not disprove this. Therefore i can be whatever i want to be if it bolsters my arguement. Im also a billionaire and own 4/5ths of the moon.


I just want people to think about this before they credit anybody with being knowledgible in anything they are talking about on here.

I wish the American government luck that it doesnt implode from all the lies and slandering that will occur within the next couple months. Because Allah forgive somebody actually be affermed on merit and not political idealolgy. This is truely the weakest area of the american system of government. The laws of the land are decided by a select few all with political leanings and not an unbias viewpoint on cases.

If someone is knowledgable in an area they can demonstrate it, if not they just look like an ass (like me).

Thanks for the heads up though superman

as for the rest of your post: what the hell are you talking about?

And here we have a specimen of the rare wild Dumbass, engaging in its courtship ritual of looking like a total idiot. This is why it is so rare.

Na. It's a regular old domestic dumbass, common as dirt. I think the last wild one was the Unabomber. Wild ones are rare indeed, but there are a few domestic ones who resemble the wild breed. Rather like how a skinny alamut resembles a wolf.

I think you'd find almost everyone who has seen many of my posts will agree I am, in fact, a lawyer.

You're either a:

lawyer
law scholar
law professor
legal correspondent
or someone with WAY too much time on his/her hands.


:)

I enjoy your posts, and not because we align very closely ideologically, either. You've often shown me the hows and the whys of the whats, and I appreciate that.

You're either a:

lawyer
law scholar
law professor
legal correspondent
or someone with WAY too much time on his/her hands.


:)

I enjoy your posts, and not because we align very closely ideologically, either. You've often shown me the hows and the whys of the whats, and I appreciate that.

At least 2 of the above. ;)

But, really, thanks. :)

(And, just fyi, I'm a man.)

EDIT: Now, back on-topic or Corny will yell at me again! :eek: :D

Just 2 days ago a lot of people were so happy because of a 5-4 vote in favor of the liberals, concering the Ten Cammandments issue in Kentucky. And I responded by saying just wait until 5 Christians with morals and values take over. Well, happy days, that day has arrived. Now, all we need is for John Renquist (right around the corner), and John Paul Stevens to step aside, and here those 6-3 final vote counts in favor of morality start pouring in, and the purification of America will begin. Maybe the other 3 immoral Justices left, well get discouraged and step down as well. 9 Christian Supreme court justices would be a joyous occation. This is the best news I have heard in years. How sweet it is! Justice has prevailed! Let's see how happy some of you are now. In GOD all things are possible! Halleluhiah! Amen!

Just 2 days ago a lot of people were so happy because of a 5-4 vote in favor of the liberals, concering the Ten Cammandments issue in Kentucky. And I responded by saying just wait until 5 Christians with morals and values take over. Well, happy days, that day has arrived. Now, all we need is for John Renquist (right around the corner), and John Paul Stevens to step aside, and here those 6-3 final vote counts in favor of morality start pouring in, and the purification of America will begin. Maybe the other 3 immoral Justices left, well get discouraged and step down as well. 9 Christian Supreme court justices would be a joyous occation. This is the best news I have heard in years. How sweet it is! Justice has prevailed! Let's see how happy some of you are now. In GOD all things are possible! Halleluhiah! Amen!
If that happens you should be very afraid. Islam is the fastest growing religion. Maybe by the time your kids are in school there will be a muslim majority in the court and your kids will have to memorize the koran in high school.

Just 2 days ago a lot of people were so happy because of a 5-4 vote in favor of the liberals, concering the Ten Cammandments issue in Kentucky. And I responded by saying just wait until 5 Christians with morals and values take over. Well, happy days, that day has arrived. Now, all we need is for John Renquist (right around the corner), and John Paul Stevens to step aside, and here those 6-3 final vote counts in favor of morality start pouring in, and the purification of America will begin. Maybe the other 3 immoral Justices left, well get discouraged and step down as well. 9 Christian Supreme court justices would be a joyous occation. This is the best news I have heard in years. How sweet it is! Justice has prevailed! Let's see how happy some of you are now. In GOD all things are possible! Halleluhiah! Amen!

This is a joke, right?

99.99% of the world could be Islam and it wouldn't matter. Jesus would come and put an end to it all. His 1000 year reign would be at hand. Praise GOD allmighty!

99.99% of the world could be Islam and it wouldn't matter. Jesus would come and put an end to it all. His 1000 year reign would be at hand. Praise GOD allmighty!

You have one minor problem.

The Muslims consider Jesus to be a prophet and that God and Allah are the same God :rolleyes:

Who would Jesus step in and help? The muslims who consider him a mere prophet, or the Christians that accept him as the son of GOD? You have a 50-50% chance of guessing right.

99.99% of the world could be Islam and it wouldn't matter. Jesus would come and put an end to it all. His 1000 year reign would be at hand. Praise GOD allmighty!
Yeah, but an islamic majority on the supreme court combined with the precedent of the court enforcing religion would mean that your kids would face heavy pressure to convert to Islam. Then if Jesus comes your kids burn forever.

Who would Jesus step in and help? The muslims who consider him a mere prophet, or the Christians that accept him as the son of GOD? You have a 50-50% chance of guessing right.

Dude, I am a christian and God will protect those that are God fearing men and women wether they are Jews, Muslims, and Christians. The only thing is, I don't know about the Hindus or the Buddahs and where they'll fall into this (not trying to be offensive in anyway. Apologies if I came across as such)

Dude, I am a christian and God will protect those that are God fearing men and women wether they are Jews, Muslims, and Christians. The only thing is, I don't know about the Hindus or the Buddahs and where they'll fall into this (not trying to be offensive in anyway. Apologies if I came across as such)
How can you be so sure? Maybe none of the religions have it right and god likes agnostics and atheists best because they've never done anything objectionable in it's name.

The Christian Theocracy of America welcomes one and all. If you don't like it here move to a Muslim nation since you speak so highly of them.

How can you be so sure? Maybe none of the religions have it right and god likes agnostics and atheists best because they've never done anything objectionable in it's name.

Now there you have a point DCD! A distinct point! :D

The Christian Theocracy of America welcomes one and all. If you don't like it here move to a Muslim nation since you speak so highly of them.
Actually Christians and Muslims are the two religions I trust least. Maybe I should move to Israel. Land of the free, home of the kosher.

The Christian Theocracy of America welcomes one and all. If you don't like it here move to a Muslim nation since you speak so highly of them.

I'd take up a gun and fight a theocracy and I don't care what religion it is!

No, it's not fair. It looks like hentai's going to be banned.

Change is good - the pendulum swingeth

Agnostics and atheists have never said anything objectionable..... except blasphemies, rejecting his holy name, cursing, calling his holy words nothing but lies and fairy tales, and making claims of false idols. Sure, he would reserve a place for all of you that think this way, and condem the rest of us to eternal damnation for suffering, obeying, praying and trying our best to follow his holy word. Believe what you want! GOD cannot and will not be defeated no matter who wishes it to be so. Read Revelation for a better understanding. It is not to late to repent and give your life to GOD!

Agnostics and atheists have never said anything objectionable..... except blasphemies, rejecting his holy name, cursing, calling his holy words nothing but lies and fairy tales, and making claims of false idols. Sure, he would reserve a place for all of you that think this way, and condem the rest of us to eternal damnation for suffering, obeying, praying and trying our best to follow his holy word. Believe what you want! GOD cannot and will not be defeated no matter who wishes it to be so. Read Revelation for a better understanding. It is not to late to repent and give your life to GOD!
I said we never did anything objectionable in it's name. Not that we didn't say anything objectionable. I'm a blasphemous, godless heathen and goddamned proud of it. Any god that has to pitch a hissy fit about that isn't worth worshipping, IMHO of course.

Who is this?

I suspect HannibalSmith and I forget what the other name was.....

Try 8th. ;)

BTW why hide it when you are proud?

Were you also Salishi?

Best known by me as Johnny Wadd

I think that was also HannibalSmith

I don't think Salishe was the same person as HannibalSmith/Armstrong/Johnny Wadd/whoever else he was

Salishe, while angry and flamish, was truthful about who he was and his service I believe.

Take a gun and kill all the Theocrats you possibly can, if you so desire, however, my beloved sister, in the end it won't matter. That is why GOD gave us free will! He offered us heaven and warned us of hell. Your choice! GOD bless!

Were you also Salishi?

btw he was deated again already

Agnostics and atheists have never said anything objectionable..... except blasphemies, rejecting his holy name, cursing, calling his holy words nothing but lies and fairy tales, and making claims of false idols. Sure, he would reserve a place for all of you that think this way, and condem the rest of us to eternal damnation for suffering, obeying, praying and trying our best to follow his holy word. Believe what you want! GOD cannot and will not be defeated no matter who wishes it to be so. Read Revelation for a better understanding. It is not to late to repent and give your life to GOD!

So are you one of the 144,000 virgin males that will be saved according to Revelations? I myself plan to be wearing scarlet & lavender.

Take a gun and kill all the Theocrats you possibly can, if you so desire, however, my beloved sister, in the end it won't matter. That is why GOD gave us free will! He offered us heaven and warned us of hell. Your choice! GOD bless!

I think it's legal to do so once they give you permission.

Uh No. You obviously don't know much about Constitutional Interpretation.

LOL No offense but Cat is probably one of the best SCOTUS/Constitution guys here.....

Take a gun and kill all the Theocrats you possibly can, if you so desire, however, my beloved sister, in the end it won't matter. That is why GOD gave us free will! He offered us heaven and warned us of hell. Your choice! GOD bless!

This is the 3rd time in 3 days I"ve been called a female :headbang:

Never make assumptions! I'm 100% M-A-L-E! And don't calle me your beloved brother either. I maybe a christian but I'm not apart of the religious extreme right.

That is why GOD gave us free will! He offered us heaven and warned us of hell. Your choice! GOD bless!

Wait, you want a theocracy, but you accept that God gave us free will? Is it me or does this lack continuity of thought? :confused: Wouldn't God prefer that we choose to follow Him rather than be forced to follow Him?

Wait, you want a theocracy, but you accept that God gave us free will? Is it me or does this lack continuity of thought? :confused: Wouldn't God prefer that we choose to follow him rather than be forced to follow Him?

I think He would prefer that we choose to follow him and not be forced to follow him.

I want to continue to worship God :D

I thought conservatives worshiped Barney! :p

I thought conservatives worshiped Barney! :p

Not me. I would rather shoot barney than worship him :D

Not me. I would rather shoot barney than worship him :D

I think this is an issue where the Liberal and the Conservative can agree.

:confused: :mp5:

(Is that an appropriate use of the gun-toting smiley? :D )

I think this is an issue where the Liberal and the Conservative can agree. :mp5:

HEHE!

Bi-Partisanship is a terrific thing!

BTW: Who do you think is going to win the Pitt Mayorial race?

btw he was deated again already


Ahh well you should have patience for the slow people! ;)

Dear Kecibukia, the 144,000 you refer to are Jews, from the decendendets of the 12 tribes of Israel. Revelation 7:4-8 How many were given this mark? I heard the number--it was 144,000; out of all twelve tribes of Israel, as listed here: ; Judah 12,000; Reuben 12,000; Gad 12,000; Asher 12,000;
Naphtali 12,000; Manasseh 12,000; Simeon 12,000; Levi 12,000; Issachar 12,000; Zebulun 12,000; Joseph 12,000; Benjamin 12,000

I am but a mere gentile, and might even have to endure the Tribulation. That is when GOD offers man a final chance at salvation. Those who are willing to die a ghastly death in his namesake will be saved. Revelation 7:9. After this I saw a vast crowd, too great to count, from all nations and provinces and languages, standing in front of the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white, with palm branches in their hands. This refers to all believers not included in the original 144,00

All others that remain cursing GOD will be condemed to the lake of fire.

Revelation 6:15. The kings of the earth, and world leaders and rich men, and high-ranking military officers, and all men great and small, slave and free, hid themselves in the caves and rocks of the mountains,
Revelation 6:16. and cried to the mountains to crush them. Fall on us, they pleaded, and hide us from the face of the one sitting on the throne, and from the anger of the Lamb,
Revelation 6:17. because the great day of their anger has come, and who can survive it?

Glory be to GOD!

BTW: Who do you think is going to win the Pitt Mayorial race?

Unfortunately, I'm almost certain it will be Bob O'Connor.

Pittsburgh is a Democratic stronghold. I know we've had Republican Mayors in the past, but it's not going to happen in the current political climate. No Republican can win that election at the moment. O'Connor ran away with the nomination (he nearly doubled his closest competitor) and he'll win the election hands down.

I'm sad, because I was really pulling for one of the underdog candidates. Michael Lamb is the current Prothonotary and has, without laying anyone off, managed to cut spending in his office by nearly 50%. When he was elected, the Prothonotary's office did nearly all of its recordkeeping by hand! He's implemented technology so that it's one of the most advanced court reporting offices in the nation. He made technology his priority, so that as people retired he was able to eliminate their positions. He has also taken a hardline against the nepotism that has (up to this point) run rampant in Allegheny County.

I've met him personally and really believe he would make a fantastic Mayor. I know there is still the chance of a write-in, but he was the third vote-getter, so even in a write-in, it's unlikely to be Lamb. He showed far better than expected, though, so we're all taking that as endorsement that he should run again.

Unfortunately, I'm almost certain it will be Bob O'Connor.

Pittsburgh is a Democratic stronghold. I know we've had Republican Mayors in the past, but it's not going to happen in the current political climate. No Republican can win that election at the moment. O'Connor ran away with the nomination (he nearly doubled his closest competitor) and he'll win the election hands down.

I'm sad, because I was really pulling for one of the underdog candidates. Michael Lamb is the current Prothonotary and has,
without laying anyone off, managed to cut spending in his office by nearly 50%. When he was elected, the Prothonotary's office did nearly all of its recordkeeping by hand! He's implemented technology so that it's one of the most advanced court reporting offices in the nation. He made technology his priority, so that as people retired he was able to eliminate their positions. He has also taken a hardline against the nepotism that has (up to this point) run rampant in Allegheny County.

I've met him personally and really believe he would make a fantastic Mayor. I know there is still the chance of a write-in, but he was the third vote-getter, so even in a write-in, it's unlikely to be Lamb. He showed far better than expected, though, so we're all taking that as endorsement that he should run again.

Thank you for your opinion. I actually think he'll win too because of what the current mayor has been doing. Luckily, it ain't my problem because I live outside of Pittsburgh but I still follow the elections there because it is our county seat.

Sorry for the off topic people but her and I are from the same area and was curious :)

Dear Geecka, GOD forces no one. But if a land and it's people are to remain pure and faithful to him, it must be a land with it's citizens that worships him. If not, that land will be destroyed, just like the flood, and Israel and Sodom and Gamorrah as examples. Ther is only so much evil that GOD will tolerate before cursing and destroying such nation.

Dear Geecka, GOD forces no one. But if a land and it's people are to remain pure and faithful to him, it must be a land with it's citizens that worships him. If not, that land will be destroyed, just like the flood, and Israel and Sodom and Gamorrah as examples. Ther is only so much evil that GOD will tolerate before cursing and destroying such nation.

Really? Then why haven't all the land that don't worship him been wiped out?

Forgive me Corneliu, but under your name it says Uber Spamgirl..... How was I supposed to know? I will most likely do it again until your posting status has changed. I am terrible at remembering names. So sorry once again and in advance if I should call you as such in the future. GOD bless!

P.S. You are right, Mr. Bush is a social moderate compared to me. However, we are all brothers in the eyes of GOD! Good day!

Dear Geecka, GOD forces no one. But if a land and it's [sic] people are to remain pure and faithful to him [sic], it must be a land with it's [sic] citizens that worships [sic] him [sic]. If not, that land will be destroyed, just like the flood [sic], and Israel and Sodom and Gamorrah [sic] as examples. Ther [sic] is only so much evil that GOD will tolerate before cursing and destroying such nation [sic].

Interesting to me is that you don't show God the proper respect and capitalize the personal pronoun He when speaking of Him. God might also prefer that you use proper grammar, spelling and word choice when rebuking the "sinners."



Edit: I realize I'm coming dangerously close to flame-baiting, so I'm stopping. But boy was toying with him fun!

When he is ready Black Forrest, and not before.

Forgive me Corneliu, but under your name it says Uber Spamgirl..... How was I supposed to know? I will most likely do it again until your posting status has changed. I am terrible at remembering names. So sorry once again and in advance if I should call you as such in the future. GOD bless!

P.S. You are right, Mr. Bush is a social moderate compared to me. However, we are all brothers in the eyes of GOD! Good day!
Yeah, it does that for everyone. I was adminbots boyfriend for a bit, and last time I checked myrth wasn't gay.


(ooooh)

Let's end the topic hijacking, folks. Right here, right now.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop

Dear Geecka, I am sure that GOD will forgive me for any grammatical errors. That is not a sin! By the way, mocking me will get you no where, but mocking GOD, could be a serious mistake on your part. Bye, bye!

Let's end the topic hijacking, folks. Right here, right now.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop


Thank you. That was insane.

Dear Geecka, I am sure that GOD will forgive me for any grammatical errors. That is not a sin! By the way, mocking me will get you no where, but mocking GOD, could be a serious mistake on your part. Bye, bye!

Is that so? Let us put that to the test shall we?

God is a really mean old bastard who likes to put bricks under hats so he can laugh when people kick it. He's also a vicious kid who likes to destroy his toys when they don't work the way their supposed to.

Now according to you, I should be dead or suffer some sort of divine punishment. I'll be back in 24 hours to laugh at you.

But back on topic, has there been any word on potential candidates?

If some of the conservatives (neo) here are the benchmark, I would bet on a ruinous time too.
Don't worry, Neo is not representative of conservatives. She's part of a loony fringe.

Loony fringe or no, do you think there is no chance that we might get someone like that nominated for the SC?

Not much anymore if things go well :D

I guess this is karma from the gay marriage rulings in Spain and Canada.
Perhaps. Could it be that freedom is never increased, just redistributed? There's more of it in Spain and Canada, so soon there will be less of it in America.

Heh, and for the super fundies, this certainly drew a chuckle from me.

http://www.idrewthis.org/2005/rapture.html
That was exactly a year on from the mass murder in Spain. Coincidence?

Pinko-Commie! Another name for the liberal elite or liberal left.
"Left-wing elite" is an oxymoron.

Quick question: How did "Pinko" come to mean that? I can see any relation between "pinko" and being liberal. Is it just a word somebody made up, or did it derive from an actual word/group of words?
Well, if you're "Red" you're a full on socialist. A "pinko" is a watered-down/moderate version of that.

been any word on potential candidates?

To many ranging from a judge from the circuit courts to the former Solicitor General. The field is open and we won't know anything till Bush gets back from the G-8 meeting in Europe on July 8 :headbang:

That was exactly a year on from the mass murder in Spain. Coincidence?

Can you provide some information on said mass murder?

Can you provide some information on said mass murder?

That would be the March train bombing that killed over hundred people.

Hopefully the USA will once again interpret laws in a just and accurate way, just like they have done for the first 200 years of this country's existence. I hope that many of the injust and immoral rulings that have happened in the past 29 years is a learning experience for all, and where we can say: Never again!

True Freedom, Justice and Morality will once again be the law of the land. "One nation under GOD" will be perserved, respected and honored, as it should be. GOD bless!

Hopefully the USA will once again interpret laws in a just and accurate way, just like they have done for the first 200 years of this country's existence. I hope that many of the injust and immoral rulings that have happened in the past 29 years is a learning experience for all, and where we can say: Never again!

True Freedom, Justice and Morality will once again be the law of the land. "One nation under GOD" will be perserved, respected and honored, as it should be. GOD bless!
Have you ever actually studied the history of the US? I doubt it, based on the inanity of this comment.

Hopefully the USA will once again interpret laws in a just and accurate way, just like they have done for the first 200 years of this country's existence. I hope that many of the injust and immoral rulings that have happened in the past 29 years is a learning experience for all, and where we can say: Never again!

True Freedom, Justice and Morality will once again be the law of the land. "One nation under GOD" will be perserved, respected and honored, as it should be. GOD bless!

"One nation under God" was added to the pledge of allegiance in the early 1950's with the sole reason to single out Atheists and Communists, part of a psuedo-crusade attributed largely to Congressman Joseph Mcarthy(A raving idiot). This was added to the pledge 60 years after it was written, in the early 1890's. It was added without the permission of the original writer. Basically, a bunch of "Christian" groups decided to dephile the original pledge by putting a phrase in to specifically discriminate against a group of people who were not agreeable with them. YEAH. We really are one nation under God. Bullshit.

True Freedom, not Freedom for only Christians. True Justice, not Justice only for Christians. Morality is everywhere... unfortunately it's quite hard to find within the Christian circles. You want your theocracy? Go elsewhere. We most assuredly are not one, nor will we ever be one.

Oh, and the Supreme Court does not deal with morality. It was not meant to deal with morality. Nowhere in the US Constitution does it proclaim otherwise. The Supreme Court only deals with Constitutionality. Your plea for morality is pety and worthless, as what you plea against isn't supposed to concern itself with morality. Ignorance is far more destructive to this nation than what you proclaim to be "unjust" and "immoral". You claim you want to save the nation by destroying the foundation which it is built upon. People like to act like terrorists are going to destroy our nation, when infact the American people, or a great most anyway, are doing one hell of a job all by themselves. Terrorists can't destroy us, our enemies can't destroy us, but we sure as hell can.

You're ignorance is what will destroy our nation. I weep for the day that you succeed. Hopefully there will be those willing to fight to save this country, not tear it down with their crusades.

Now that the Supreme Court is back on track, I think we should all be grateful and honored as citizens of this great nation. I am so happy, aren't you? If not, I wish you all a safe trip to wherever you decide to move! Ah, more peace and quite and jobs and unity for the rest of us.

Now that the Supreme Court is back on track, I think we should all be grateful and honored as citizens of this great nation. I am so happy, aren't you? If not, I wish you all a safe trip to wherever you decide to move! Ah, more peace and quite and jobs and unity for the rest of us.

I have to wonder if this person is somehow under an influence that impairs judgment and the decision making process.

Now that the Supreme Court is back on track, I think we should all be grateful and honored as citizens of this great nation. I am so happy, aren't you? If not, I wish you all a safe trip to wherever you decide to move! Ah, more peace and quite and jobs and unity for the rest of us.

Oh sweetie, you are going to have ulcers when the pendulum swings back the other way. It always does.

Oh sweetie, you are going to have ulcers when the pendulum swings back the other way. It always does.
Justice Stevens is 85... but he wants to hold out for another four years, I think.

Justice Stevens is 85... but he wants to hold out for another four years, I think.

The SCOTUS will take awhile but I am talking about the other two branches. Knuckleheads like our friend here think they will hold all three branches from now on.

I will not be surprised if we see major changes in the 2006 general elections.

That's o.k. Black Forrest, I forgive you! I never report anyone who resorts to insults and vulger language. In the end most that do this, wind up being banned, but hey, think of it as a vacation. Besides, most people who resort to insults and vulgarities, just goes to prove their lack of a proper upbringing and education.

And as far as the pendulum swinging both ways, I am fully aware of that. But at present, it's tilted in my favor. So why not celebrate this great occasion? Also, I never mentioned anything about the 3 legislative branches, I solely spoke of the Supreme Court. You might consider purchasing spectacles.

Let's try to remain focused on the topic at hand, shall we?

**********

And dear Non Aligned States, the only influence I am under is social and moral conscious. What influence might you be under?

Are you not happy with Sandra Day O'Conner retiring?

That's o.k. Black Forrest, I forgive you! I never report anyone who resorts to insults and vulger language. In the end most that do this, wind up being banned, but hey, think of it as a vacation. Besides, most people who resort to insults and vulgarities, just goes to prove their lack of a proper upbringing and education.

And as far as the pendulum swinging both ways, I am fully aware of that. But at present, it's tilted in my favor. So why not celebrate this great occasion? Also, I never mentioned anything about the 3 legislative branches, I solely spoke of the Supreme Court. You might consider purchasing spectacles.

Let's try to remain focused on the topic at hand, shall we?

**********

And dear Non Aligned States, the only influence I am under is social and moral consciouns. What influence might you be under?

Are you not happy with Sandra Day O'Conner retiring?

3 legislative branches? LOL

You have some strange ideas. O'Connor was a swing vote on the Court but was a staunch conservative. You have less to celebrate that you think.

You earlier claimed things would really go your way when "John" Rehnquist retires. Chief Justice William Rehnquist is one of the most conservative members of the Court and sides with Thomas and Scalia in almost every case.

Replacing conservatives with conservatives won't change much. True, we could get more unqualified and/or idelogical zealous Justices like Thomas and Scalia. That is enough to make an athiest cry "God help us."

Luckily confirmation will require 2/3 of the Senate. A zealot or an idiot shouldn't get confirmed anytime soon.

First off, I am aware that it is William Rehnquist and not John, I had John Paul Stevens in mind, who I also mentioned by the way, when I posted that. I should have edited.

Next, I agree that Sandra Day O"Connor was a swing vote, however, although siding around 80% of the times with the conservatives, her issues on abortion I disagreed with. Therefore, hopefully this time around we will get someone who is pro-life. So that helps greatly!

I am also aware that by replacing William Rehnquist with another conservative is not going to be such a great deal, but it's inevitable. And it needs to be done while Mr. Bush is still in office.

Lastly, John Paul Stevens is a question mark. At 85, will his health permit him to remain for 3 more years? If not, that might ad one more conservative to the bench. We would then have 6 conservatives and 3 liberals. I like those odds!

First off, I am aware that it is William Rehnquist and not John, I had John Paul Stevens in mind, who I also mentioned by the way, when I posted that. I should have edited.

Next, I agree that Sandra Day O"Connor was a swing vote, however, although siding around 80% of the times with the conservatives, her issues on abortion I disagreed with. Therefore, hopefully this time around we will get someone who is pro-life. So that helps greatly!

I am also aware that by replacing William Rehnquist with another conservative is not going to be such a great deal, but it's inevitable. And it needs to be done while Mr. Bush is still in office.

Lastly, John Paul Stevens is a question mark. At 85, will his health permit him to remain for 3 more years? If not, that might ad one more conservative to the bench. We would then have 6 conservatives and 3 liberals. I like those odds!

Um .... Okaaaaay ....

But who are you counting as three "liberals" on that Court?

Thanks for correcting me again, and feel free to do so anytime. I meant 3 branches of government. Sorry!

And court justice Scalia is who I respect and agree with the most.

What? Is this a trick question? I'm sure you already know, but your opinion might vary, so I'll answer your question the way I see it.

1) Ruth Bader Ginsburg (The worst of them all).
2) Stephen G. Breyer
3) David H. Sutter (Altough he is a registerd Republican, he sure doesn't act like one).

You could also place Anthony Kennedy as a swing vote. I believe that he is the most moderate of them all.

I hope that answers your question.

What? Is this a trick question? I'm sure you already know, but your opinion might vary, so I'll answer your question the way I see it.

1) Ruth Bader Ginsburg (The worst of them all).
2) Stephen G. Breyer
3) David H. Sutter (Altough he is a registerd Republican, he sure doesn't act like one).

You could also place Anthony Kennedy as a swing vote. I believe that he is the most moderate of them all.

I hope that answers your question.

Justice Souter is at most a moderate conservative.

Justice Kennedy is extremely conservative. He was a long-time political advisor and friend of Ronald Reagan and Edwin Meese. He is somewhat libertarian, which apparently makes some think he is liberal.

Justice Breyer is clearly a moderate. He was the swing vote that allowed the Texas 10 Commandments monument to stay up!!!!!

And dear Non Aligned States, the only influence I am under is social and moral conscious. What influence might you be under?

Logic and intellect. I prefer not to allow my judgment be driven by mutable codes of conduct that differ from culture to culture.

Are you not happy with Sandra Day O'Conner retiring?

She is within her rights to retire. It is her replacement that I am concerned about.

....... and here those 6-3 final vote counts in favor of morality start pouring in, and the purification of America will begin.
Is it just me or does this sound incredibly disturbing?

The Christian Theocracy of America welcomes one and all. If you don't like it here move to a Muslim nation since you speak so highly of them.
Alright, now I'm certain that you're a liberal playing a wildly exaggerated parody of a conservative.

I suspect HannibalSmith and I forget what the other name was.....
Friends of Bill.

I am neither a Republican nor Democrat. I am an Independent and the total opposite of a Libertarian. I am socially extreme right and fiscally extreme left.

The SCOTUS will take awhile but I am talking about the other two branches. Knuckleheads like our friend here think they will hold all three branches from now on.

It will swing the otherway one of these days. That's a promise. After all, the Dems held power for about 50 years and now it seems to be the republicans turn.

I will not be surprised if we see major changes in the 2006 general elections.

I don't think we'll see major changes. No I am not coming at it from a party perspective but from what I"m witnessing of the party leadership. If Dean doesn't get his act together, the Dems will have little money for the Congressional fight. They need to get cracking on fundraising because right now, its the republicans that are getting the money and not the democrats.

I am neither a Republican nor Democrat. I am an Independent and the total opposite of a Libertarian. I am socially extreme right and fiscally extreme left.
So you are Pope Benedict XVI?

Is it just me or does this sound incredibly disturbing?
:eek:
Not just you.

I don't think we'll see major changes. No I am not coming at it from a party perspective but from what I"m witnessing of the party leadership. If Dean doesn't get his act together, the Dems will have little money for the Congressional fight. They need to get cracking on fundraising because right now, its the republicans that are getting the money and not the democrats.
Dude, I don't know what you've been reading, but Dean's been the best fundraiser in the DNC's history in his short tenure as Chair. Republicans have always outraised the Democrats--usually by a 3 to 1 margin--and Dean has cut that advantage to 2 to 1. And if he manages to get it anywhere close to even, you guys are in a world of shit.

But go ahead--keep thinking that Dean's a joke. I welcome it.

So you are Pope Benedict XVI?

No, think of me more as a humble apostle of Jesus!

Dude, I don't know what you've been reading, but Dean's been the best fundraiser in the DNC's history in his short tenure as Chair.

I'm not surprised that you think that. Macallif(sp?) was better than Dean. The Dems need somone that goes to the people and not spout off so many lies that he makes himself look like a fool.

Republicans have always outraised the Democrats--usually by a 3 to 1 margin--and Dean has cut that advantage to 2 to 1. And if he manages to get it anywhere close to even, you guys are in a world of shit.

*starts to count how many senate seats the Republicans are going to take this year*

But go ahead--keep thinking that Dean's a joke. I welcome it.

He is a joke. He's a liar too. I'm a republican and I have worked honestly for my money.

No, think of me more as a humble apostle of Jesus!

Are you sure that term humble really belongs there in your description of yourself?

Excuse me, I don't know what you've been reading, but Dean's been the best fundraiser in the DNC's history in his short tenure as Chair. Republicans have always outraised the Democrats--usually by a 3 to 1 margin--and Dean has cut that advantage to 2 to 1. And if he manages to get it anywhere close to even, you guys are in a world of trouble.

But go ahead--keep thinking that Dean's a joke. I welcome it.


Republicans won based on the issues not their pocketbooks.

22% of Americans based their vote on the war on terrorism.
22% of Americans based their vote on moral values.

Based on these 2 key issues leading the way, the Democrats did not stand a chance.

Now don't get me wrong, I liked Kerry more than Bush, however, since my main reason for voting is always based on moral values, there is no way I could ever vote for Kerry, and based on economical issues I could never vote for Bush. So as an independent, I voted for a third Party.

No one should feel worse than me, because as an independent minority, my Party stands no chance of ever winning. I always lose..... which should make most of you very happy.

Are you sure that term humble really belongs there in your description of yourself?

I absolutely try my best!

Time for me to go now, I have been here a lot longer than I planned on, so I will see you all later. Although, most of you would prefer not ever seeing me again, I know.

Take care all and GOD bless!

Thanks for correcting me again, and feel free to do so anytime. I meant 3 branches of government. Sorry!

And court justice Scalia is who I respect and agree with the most.

It figures you would respect a liar ("No founding fathre ever uttered the phrase Seperation of Church and State").

As to my upbringing and education? If you only knew sweetie. If you only knew.

Oh don't bother threatening me with the moderators, feel free to inform them anytime.

Is it just me or does this sound incredibly disturbing?

Very. Unfortunatly there are many like him. I sadly confess some of my redneck relatives sound like him. :(

God I hope he is not one of them. ;)

I don't think we'll see major changes. No I am not coming at it from a party perspective but from what I"m witnessing of the party leadership. If Dean doesn't get his act together, the Dems will have little money for the Congressional fight. They need to get cracking on fundraising because right now, its the republicans that are getting the money and not the democrats.

American's are rather particular to getting results. If the repubs don't produce something soon, they have a habit of saying well, lets see what the others will do.

Why else hasn't the shrubs pets projects been voted in? Too many people are worried about re-election.....

I find it unfair that only a black or hispanic could possibly become a new justice. I say we leave it entirely up to chance. We get a big spinner and on it we have all the racial groups in America "European, African, Hispanic, Native, Arab, Asian, Indian, blah, blah" and their portion on the spinner is judged on the percent of that race is making up the population. Then when it lands on a race we bring out a new spinner which has that race's gender ratio, and then we spin that one. Great idea, am I right?

I find it unfair that only a black or hispanic could possibly become a new justice. I say we leave it entirely up to chance. We get a big spinner and on it we have all the racial groups in America "European, African, Hispanic, Native, Arab, Asian, Indian, blah, blah" and their portion on the spinner is judged on the percent of that race is making up the population. Then when it lands on a race we bring out a new spinner which has that race's gender ratio, and then we spin that one. Great idea, am I right?

Damn straight!

Those blacks and Hispanics should let someone else on the Court for a change! :eek:

I really hate to say this, but this could decide the midterm election.

I'm not surprised that you think that. Macallif(sp?) was better than Dean. The Dems need somone that goes to the people and not spout off so many lies that he makes himself look like a fool.


Actually he is what the people seem to need. He is just using the same tactics the Reubs used rather effectivily.


*starts to count how many senate seats the Republicans are going to take this year*

None. All that are left are the fanatics and the people want them there.

If the repubs don't accomplish something, you will see them loose seats.

The fact the shrubs political "capitol" evaporated so quickly seems to suggest things are not well in paradise.


He is a joke. He's a liar too. I'm a republican and I have worked honestly for my money.

No more then Rove. What? and democrats never worked honestly for theirs?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=904955

Democrats are threatening filibuster!

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=904955

Democrats are threatening filibuster!
You didn't even read that did you?

And you know we're fucked when people are lobbying GONZALEZ as too moderate

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=904955

Democrats are threatening filibuster!

They've said it is an option. Duh.

Nothing to see here. Move along, people.

Actually he is what the people seem to need. He is just using the same tactics the Reubs used rather effectivily.

Last time I checked, the republicans didn't say that the Democrats haven't worked an honest day in their live.

None. All that are left are the fanatics and the people want them there.

If the repubs don't accomplish something, you will see them loose seats.

The fact the shrubs political "capitol" evaporated so quickly seems to suggest things are not well in paradise.

If the Dean keeps up his raving, they'll lose a couple of seats. Some in the Democratic Party are distancing themselves from the DNC chair because he represents a liability. They see it.

No more then Rove. What? and democrats never worked honestly for theirs?

Care to show me where I said the dems haven't worked honestly in their lives? Care to point to where Rove (who isn't the party chairman) said it? Dean maybe ralling his base but he is also causing the Republicans to rally too. Rally to defeat this raving lunatic who needs to learn to watch what he says.

Ihatevacations']You didn't even read that did you?

Actually yes I did. I know it is an option but the mere fact that its an option is enough to get me upset. He's the President and thus his people should get the up or down vote they deserve.

Last time I checked, the republicans didn't say that the Democrats haven't worked an honest day in their live.
No, but the random attack dogs they have regularly slander the Democrats as well. Don't sit there tossing around biased bullshit like people won't call you on it. Both sides have attack dogs but only the Democrats pretend they try to reign them in - the Republicans jsut send in teh apologist forces. Don't believe me, wanna call me on partisanship? Do you see Rove apologizing? No.

Actually yes I did. I know it is an option but the mere fact that its an option is enough to get me upset. He's the President and thus his people should get the up or down vote they deserve.
The Republicans used filibuster against Lyndon Jonhson's nominee to the Supreme Court, am I right?

The Republicans used filibuster against Lyndon Jonhson's nominee to the Supreme Court, am I right?

I believe they did but I wasn't around in the 60s to condemn the action :D

Commentary.

A filibuster is the only way to make the appointment fair, theoretically. To overcome a filibuster it requires 60 senators agree, for a simple up or down vote it requries a simple majority - 51. The Republicans hold 55 seats. That is enough to confirm anyone they want without any sort of debate without the filibuster, with the filibuster it requires some democrats agree with them, assuming all Republicans vote yes.

I believe they did but I wasn't around in the 60s to condemn the action :D
:D

BTW, I found the relevant thing. Abe Fortas was nominated for Chief Justiceship in 1968... however, he was filibustered by a bipartisan coalition! Twenty-four Republicans and nineteen Democrats voted against cloture.

:D

BTW, I found the relevant thing. Abe Fortas was nominated for Chief Justiceship in 1968... however, he was filibustered by a bipartisan coalition! Twenty-four Republicans and nineteen Democrats voted against cloture.

Gotta love bipartisanship :D

Anyway, I'm against filibusters of presidential nominations. That is just me though.

Gotta love bipartisanship :D

Anyway, I'm against filibusters of presidential nominations. That is just me though.
And I am against pure party-line allegiance.

Ihatevacations']And I am against pure party-line allegiance.

Newsflash:

I maybe a republican but I will cross party-lines if I feel that the other candidate can do the job better.

Last time I checked, the republicans didn't say that the Democrats haven't worked an honest day in their live.

Well they did question their "loyaly" to the nation.....


If the Dean keeps up his raving, they'll lose a couple of seats. Some in the Democratic Party are distancing themselves from the DNC chair because he represents a liability. They see it.

Not at all. The repubs offer nothing to the demos. Don't forget 58 million people voted against the shrub, they could very well unset a few people.


Care to show me where I said the dems haven't worked honestly in their lives? Care to point to where Rove (who isn't the party chairman) said it? Dean maybe ralling his base but he is also causing the Republicans to rally too. Rally to defeat this raving lunatic who needs to learn to watch what he says.
You said you as a republian worked hard for you money....

If you think Rove doesn't lie, then you should label yourself as a party zealot.

The Repub base is easy to rally. Just make some noise about "faggots" getting something and they will rush to the polls.

People like Dean as you have said, they needed a direction for the demos. Dean is giving one. The shrub doesn't toss the demos a bone so why not follow Dean.

Newsflash:

I maybe a republican but I will cross party-lines if I feel that the other candidate can do the job better.
That's peachy, I wasn't talking about anyone specific

Gotta love bipartisanship :D

Anyway, I'm against filibusters of presidential nominations. That is just me though.

Meh.

You are against filibusters because the Republicans are in a majority. Period.

Filibusters have been part of the Senate rules since 1806. There wasn't even a way to end a filibuster with a super-majority cloture vote until 1917.

Meh.

You are against filibusters because the Republicans are in a majority. Period.

Hmmm no. There are things that require filibusters but I am against filibusters of Presidential Nominees. Why? Because he/she is the president. It is his job to appoint them and the Senate's job to give them an up or down vote.

Filibusters have been part of the Senate rules since 1806. There wasn't even a way to end a filibuster with a super-majority cloture vote until 1917.

Thanks for telling me something that I already know.

Hmmm no. There are things that require filibusters but I am against filibusters of Presidential Nominees. Why? Because he/she is the president. It is his job to appoint them and the Senate's job to give them an up or down vote.

Um. The Senate's "job" according to what?

Pray tell where this rule is found.

Thanks for telling me something that I already know.

I'd stuff the attitude. You routinely get issues of law wrong, so one cannot assume what you do and don't know.

If you know the rule is as old as the Republic, then your complaint is pretty feeble.

Um. The Senate's "job" according to what?

Pray tell where this rule is found.

You don't know that it is the Senate's job to approve or disapprove of the PResident's choice?

I'd stuff the attitude. You routinely get issues of law wrong, so one cannot assume what you do and don't know.

Never assume something about me.

If you know the rule is as old as the Republic, then your complaint is pretty feeble.

I am opposed to nominee filibusters but filibustering something else I am ok with if it deserves to be filibustered.

You don't know that it is the Senate's job to approve or disapprove of the PResident's choice?

I know that is not the Senate's job.

I know that no Justice may be appointed without the consent of the Senate. The Senate need not consent.

Apparently this is one of those areas where you don't know the correct law.

I know that is not the Senate's job.

So let me ask you this then. Why are we having confirmation fights if its not the Senate's job to vote on the nominees? Why are we having a UN nomination fight if its not the Senate's Job to confirm them?

I know that no Justice may be appointed without the consent of the Senate. The Senate need not consent.

Article II Section II: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Seante, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise proveded for, and which shall be established by Law: butthe Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of the Departments.

Apparently this is one of those areas where you don't know the correct law.

At least, I know what the Constitution says because apparently you've forgotten it.

Hmmm no. There are things that require filibusters but I am against filibusters of Presidential Nominees. Why? Because he/she is the president. It is his job to appoint them and the Senate's job to give them an up or down vote.
I disagree with this on the simple fact that and up or down vote only requires a simple majority, not 2/3rds like it should be, and since the Senate is not 40% Democrats, 40% Republicans, and 10% Independent, a straight up or down vote is not always fair or ethical.

Oh, and Corneliu, the Senate's "jobs" are listed in Article 1 section 3

Ihatevacations']I disagree with this on the simple fact that and up or down vote only requires a simple majority, not 2/3rds like it should be, and since the Senate is not 40% Democrats, 40% Republicans, and 10% Independent, a straight up or down vote is not always fair or ethical.

Oh, and Corneliu, the Senate's "jobs" are listed in Article 1 section 3

And Article II section II states that the President's appointees must have Advice AND CONSENT from the US Senate.

And Article II section II states that the President's appointees must have Advice AND CONSENT from the US Senate.
Advice of the Senate: your appointees suck, stop appointing radicals and we won't filibuster them

So let me ask you this then. Why are we having confirmation fights if its not the Senate's job to vote on the nominees? Why are we having a UN nomination fight if its not the Senate's Job to confirm them?

Because the nomination's don't take effect without the Senate's consent. The Senate need not consent. :headbang:

If the Senate doesn't consent, no appointment.

Article II Section II: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Seante, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise proveded for, and which shall be established by Law: butthe Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of the Departments.

Um, that says the President doesn't have the power to appoint a Justice of the Supreme Court unless the Senate consents.

Obviously the Senate does not have to consent.

Do you think laws requiring consent for sex requires you to consent to sex?

At least, I know what the Constitution says because apparently you've forgotten it.

No. I understand it.

Ihatevacations']Advice of the Senate: your appointees suck, stop appointing radicals and we won't filibuster them

Consent of the Senate too! However, the Presidents appointees should have an up or down vote. If, and I'm using if because I don't know, the Democrats try to filibuster, look for the nuclear option to come out.

Ihatevacations']Advice of the Senate: your appointees suck, stop appointing radicals and we won't filibuster them


:D

Because the nomination's don't take effect without the Senate's consent. The Senate need not consent. :headbang:

If the Senate doesn't consent, no appointment.

Ha! You just proved my point! Thank you! Unless of course the President does a recess appointment which is also perfectly legal! :D

Um, that says the President doesn't have the power to appoint a Justice of the Supreme Court unless the Senate consents.

Obviously the Senate does not have to consent.

Now your starting to understand it! There is hope for you yet :p

Do you think laws requiring consent for sex requires you to consent to sex?

If there is no consent, then its rape! Come on, your a lawyer, you should know that ;)

No. I understand it.

As do I!

Consent of the Senate too! However, the Presidents appointees should have an up or down vote. If, and I'm using if because I don't know, the Democrats try to filibuster, look for the nuclear option to come out.
Consent of the Senate: Fuck you, I told you not to pick a radical judge, now we must show or disconsent by filibustering it to death. Nothing besides treaties defines how the senate must consent

Ha! You just proved my point! Thank you! Unless of course the President does a recess appointment which is also perfectly legal! :D

For some positions.

For some it unofficially fills the vacancy.

Now your starting to understand it! There is hope for you yet :p

What part of the President needing the consent of the Senate requires the Senate to give an up and down vote?

You do realize that a nomination need not even make it to the floor of the Senate. It can die in commitee.

If there is no consent, then its rape! Come on, your a lawyer, you should know that ;)

Then apply the same logic. The Senate need not say "NO." If it doesn't say "YES," there is no consent. Nomination fails.

Ihatevacations']Consent of the Senate: Fuck you, I told you not to pick a radical judge, now we must show or disconsent by filibustering it to death. Nothing besides treaties defines how the senate must consent

And no treaty can tell the US Senate how to consent either so your stuck there.

Anyway, how do we know that some of these judges are radical? Are they radical because they are not liberal?

For some positions.

For some it unofficially fills the vacancy.

Ok, now you do need to explain something to me. How does it unofficially fill a vacancy if the Senate needs to confirm it? I am confused on that.

What part of the President needing the consent of the Senate requires the Senate to give an up and down vote?

Well all of it? What do you mean by what part of the President? I think your missing a couple of words there unless your intentionally trying to confuse me!

You do realize that a nomination need not even make it to the floor of the Senate. It can die in commitee.

I was wondering where you were going to say this. That is how some of Clinton's appointees died. They died in committee and not by a filibuster on the Senate Floor.

Then apply the same logic. The Senate need not say "NO." If it doesn't say "YES," there is no consent. Nomination fails.

Then the president can do a recess appointment but how can the Senate say no if there hasn't been an up or down vote?

And no treaty can tell the US Senate how to consent either so your stuck there.
You didn't understand what I said. When treaties say it requries the advice and consent of the senate, it says it msut be with a 2/3rds vote. All other things do no mention how the senate must consent


Anyway, how do we know that some of these judges are radical? Are they radical because they are not liberal?
Based on the fact that many conservatives, and you as well, declare anyone who doesn't rule with a strong right "sense of morality," which has no place on a bench ruling on constitutionality, an activist jduge, I can provide no exampel that would make you listen to my opinion.

Ok, now you do need to explain something to me. How does it unofficially fill a vacancy if the Senate needs to confirm it? I am confused on that.

Some positions are governed by statute. In those cases the person doesn't really have the job.

An actual recess appointment is based on Article II, Section 2, Clause 3:

"The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the end of their next Session"

As the Constitution states, the recess appointments automatically end.

Well all of it? What do you mean by what part of the President? I think your missing a couple of words there unless your intentionally trying to confuse me!

No. My wording was precise:

What part of the President needing the consent of the Senate requires the Senate to give an up and down vote?

What language requires the Senate to vote? What places an obligation on the Senate as opposed to a limitation on the President's power?

What part of sex must be consensual requires means rape requires the victim to say "no"?

I was wondering where you were going to say this. That is how some of Clinton's appointees died. They died in committee and not by a filibuster on the Senate Floor.

And how does your view explain that?

They didn't get an up and down vote by the entire Senate, did they?

Then the president can do a recess appointment but how can the Senate say no if there hasn't been an up or down vote?

The recess appointment automatically expires.

The Senate need not say "NO." There is no permanent appointment unless the Senate says "YES."

Anyway, how do we know that some of these judges are radical? Are they radical because they are not liberal?

Aren't we talking about a hypothetical situation with a hypothetical nominee and a hypothetical filibuster?

So, she's a hypothetical radical. ;)

Ihatevacations']You didn't understand what I said. When treaties say it requries the advice and consent of the senate, it says it msut be with a 2/3rds vote. All other things do no mention how the senate must consent

Then it implies a simple majority unless the Senate has a set number for something to pass.

Based on the fact that many conservatives, and you as well, declare anyone who doesn't rule with a strong right "sense of morality," which has no place on a bench ruling on constitutionality, an activist jduge, I can provide no exampel that would make you listen to my opinion.

How do you define a radical judge? I can point to the 9th circuit and say they are radical and extreme left. Really doesn't make it true but the fact that they are the most overturned court in the land can add evidence to it. So how do you define a radical judge?

Some positions are governed by statute. In those cases the person doesn't really have the job.

An actual recess appointment is based on Article II, Section 2, Clause 3:

"The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the end of their next Session"

As the Constitution states, the recess appointments automatically end.

Ok thanks for clearing it up. :)

No. My wording was precise:

What part of the President needing the consent of the Senate requires the Senate to give an up and down vote?

What language requires the Senate to vote? What places an obligation on the Senate as opposed to a limitation on the President's power?

What part of sex must be consensual requires means rape requires the victim to say "no"?

It'll have to depend on what the Senate Rules are doesn't it? As for the last line, doesn't that depend on each state?

And how does your view explain that?

Never said it did explain my view.

They didn't get an up and down vote by the entire Senate, did they?

But you said it yourself that it can die in committee. That is precisely where they did die. It isn't a filibuster if they die in committee.

The recess appointment automatically expires.

The Senate need not say "NO." There is no permanent appointment unless the Senate says "YES."

So theoretically, a President can constently appoint whoever he wants during a recess as many times as he likes :D

How do you define a radical judge? I can point to the 9th circuit and say they are radical and extreme left.

LOL. Would that be Judge Kozinski, Judge Kleinfeld, Judge Wallace, Judge Bea, Judge Kuhl, Judge Noonan, Judge Callahan, Judge O'Scannlain, Judge Byers, etc? ;)

Really doesn't make it true but the fact that they are the most overturned court in the land can add evidence to it. So how do you define a radical judge?

Pfft. Meaningless.

And changes year-to-year. Was it even true this last term?

Then it implies a simple majority unless the Senate has a set number for something to pass.
it implies nothing because nothing was outlined.



How do you define a radical judge? I can point to the 9th circuit and say they are radical and extreme left. Really doesn't make it true but the fact that they are the most overturned court in the land can add evidence to it. So how do you define a radical judge?
I reiterate any example I could provide would just invoke your saying you agree with the person and attacking me for my choice, so no example I could provide would cause you to listen to my opinion, thus I decline to play your game

Ihatevacations']it implies nothing because nothing was outlined.

Then its a simple majority unless there's a senate rule regarding it.

I reiterate any example I could provide would just invoke your saying you agree with the person and attacking me for my choice, so no example I could provide would cause you to listen to my opinion, thus I decline to play your game

Just tell me. Stop making excuses and provide me an example.

Then its a simple majority unless there's a senate rule regarding it.

The Senate rules allow a filibuster! Gotcha!

Just tell me. Stop making excuses and provide me an example.

Of a person that doesn't exist yet?

How about Condoleeza Rice?

But seriously, hope President Bush picks a real conservative republican, think of the children,
as our issues say.

The Senate rules allow a filibuster! Gotcha!

I never said it did Cat-Tribe. I know the Filibuster is there. I know it has been used too. However, it shouldn't be used for Presidential Appointees.

I never said it did Cat-Tribe. I know the Filibuster is there. I know it has been used too. However, it shouldn't be used for Presidential Appointees.

*watches Corneliu go in circles*

I never said it did Cat-Tribe. I know the Filibuster is there. I know it has been used too. However, it shouldn't be used for Presidential Appointees.

Why not? Good use to stop appointment of someone who who is to far left/right.

Next, I agree that Sandra Day O"Connor was a swing vote, however, although siding around 80% of the times with the conservatives, her issues on abortion I disagreed with. Therefore, hopefully this time around we will get someone who is pro-life. So that helps greatly!



You have no clue what the importance of Roe vs. Wade is, do you? Or why abortion is protected, do you? You bleed of ignorance, and your are about as stupid as a log.

Like I said before:

The Supreme Court does not concern itself with morality. You will find no mention morality in the US Constitution regarding the Supreme Court. There is a reason: The Supreme Court is to rule outside of personal bias. Of course, there is always bias, but thankfully it is not an issue on many occasions. If you don't understand how the Supreme Court works, you have no place debating anything about it.

Also, I suppose you didn't know that he Justices who decided on Roe vs. Wade were all rather devote Christians? Oh well, I guess it's almost impossible to pound the fact that the SCOTUS is not full of a bunch of God-hating atheists and heathens.

The SCOTUS deals with law, which you don't know jackshit about. Sandra Day O'connor knows more about the Law of the Land than you can ever even hope to know a fraction about. You are an ignorant fool who doesn't know what the hell he is talking about.

Also, you wish to turn America into a Theocracy? I'll save you some time, where's your adress? I'll deport you personally. You can have your Theocracy, it's just not going to be America.

How about Condoleeza Rice?

But seriously, hope President Bush picks a real conservative republican, think of the children,
as our issues say.

The day that the SCOTUS is filled with a bunch of political puppets is the day I take arms. A President should not appoint a Justice because of their political alignment, they should apoint them because they are the most qualified for the job. If a Republican Conservative was appointed, who only intention was to bring forth republican conservative views, it would be devastating to the intent of the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS is not meant for that reason. The same holds true for the other side of the spectrum

A President should never appoint a Justice whom has party ideals in mind. It would be devastating.

Ihatevacations']Advice of the Senate: your appointees suck, stop appointing radicals and we won't filibuster them

:D

You have no clue what the importance of Roe vs. Wade is, do you? Or why abortion is protected, do you? You bleed of ignorance, and your are about as stupid as a log.

Like I said before:

The Supreme Court does not concern itself with morality. You will find no mention morality in the US Constitution regarding the Supreme Court. There is a reason: The Supreme Court is to rule outside of personal bias. Of course, there is always bias, but thankfully it is not an issue on many occasions. If you don't understand how the Supreme Court works, you have no place debating anything about it.

Also, I suppose you didn't know that he Justices who decided on Roe vs. Wade were all rather devote Christians? Oh well, I guess it's almost impossible to pound the fact that the SCOTUS is not full of a bunch of God-hating atheists and heathens.

The SCOTUS deals with law, which you don't know jackshit about. Sandra Day O'connor knows more about the Law of the Land than you can ever even hope to know a fraction about. You are an ignorant fool who doesn't know what the hell he is talking about.

Also, you wish to turn America into a Theocracy? I'll save you some time, where's your adress? I'll deport you personally. You can have your Theocracy, it's just not going to be America.


**********

If Roe v.s. Wade gets overturned, it will be you that does not understand the law. But we all disagree with certain rulings of the Supreme Court. We win some, we lose some. That applies to everyone's diverse views, GOD's law, man's or whatever law you want to acknowledge. I now which laws I choose to follow. I stand firm on my statements, so you preety much wasted your time in replying.

Did you learn all that vulgar language at home or at school? Praying will do you a world of wonder. Thanks for the flaming! GOD bless you my dear and beloved brother/sister.

Quote: The day that the SCOTUS is filled with a bunch of political puppets is the day I take arms.


Now you don't want to go breaking the law, do you? Murder is against the law. Or are you special or immune to certain laws? Or maybe you make your own, as you go.

Have a wonderful day!

I now which laws I choose to follow. I stand firm on my statements, so you preety much wasted your time in replying.


If you mean the Bible in the literal sense, I would dearly love to see you get arrested for trying to stone kids to death because they wouldn't listen to their parents.

If you mean the Bible in the literal sense, I would dearly love to see you get arrested for trying to stone kids to death because they wouldn't listen to their parents.

Now don't be confusing him with facts. ;)

Let's get a gay black lady, conservative who is a constitutional purist. That would make Kennedy have a stroke.

What do you call a Black Lesbian Republican?

A masochist with deep-seated issues. :D

Quote: The day that the SCOTUS is filled with a bunch of political puppets is the day I take arms.


Now you don't want to go breaking the law, do you? Murder is against the law. Or are you special or immune to certain laws? Or maybe you make your own, as you go.

Have a wonderful day!

If a revolt is the only choice, a revolt there will be. I'm sure I wouldn't be alone. If the government becomes a facist oneparty dictator ship, then it is my duty as a true American to overthrow said dictatorship.

If Roe v.s. Wade gets overturned, it will be you that does not understand the law. But we all disagree with certain rulings of the Supreme Court. We win some, we lose some. That applies to everyone's diverse views, GOD's law, man's or whatever law you want to acknowledge. I now which laws I choose to follow. I stand firm on my statements, so you preety much wasted your time in replying.


Key word: "If", which hasn't happened yet, and probably won't happen within my lifetime. Do you know why? Do you know how the Supreme Court Works? Doubtful. The Supreme Court doesn't just overturn cases for the fun of it. There is a lengthy process which must happen before the Supreme Court will ever even consider it. Also, I still doubt that you know the true importance of Roe vs. Wade, and that you are protected by it, be you Man or Woman, Pro-life or Pro-choice. Infact, Roe vs. Wade was barely about abortion, and was moreso about privacy . Of course, what you choose to ignore is your own.

And you follow your laws of God. Of course, the Bible, in basic terms, teaches that following God's will is a choice. You can't, and shouldn't, force others to follow. But, you know, you're trying to do just that. You follow God's will, maybe he'll take mercy on you. Maybe, if you don't blatantly ignore parts of the Bible.

I did pray. A long time ago. Guess what? I got jack squat. I didn't pray for a puppy, or any bull prayer like that. It was true to the heart prayer... and I felt nothing. So, praying is, quite frankly, worthless to me.

And you follow your laws of God. Of course, the Bible, in basic terms, teaches that following God's will is a choice. You can't, and shouldn't, force others to follow. But, you know, you're trying to do just that. You follow God's will, maybe he'll take mercy on you. Maybe, if you don't blatantly ignore parts of the Bible.

I did pray. A long time ago. Guess what? I got jack squat. I didn't pray for a puppy, or any bull prayer like that. It was true to the heart prayer... and I felt nothing. So, praying is, quite frankly, worthless to me.

What would you call matthew 28:16-20?

Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

And for the prayer that you said, sometimes God's answer is no.

What would you call matthew 28:16-20?

Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

And for the prayer that you said, sometimes God's answer is no.Well if the guy was praying for understanding and God told him no, then what kind of asshole does that make God?

As for the scripture you quote, I'd call that the move toward making a human a legend, and thus turning a philosopher into the son of God.

OK, people, let's try to stay vaguely on topic.

The wall of separation of Church and State was vaguely on topic. The merits of prayer and religion are not.

Scalia is the Devil. Discuss amongs yourselves. :eek: :D

OK, people, let's try to stay vaguely on topic.

The wall of separation of Church and State was vaguely on topic. The merits of prayer and religion are not.

Scalia is the Devil. Discuss amongs yourselves. :eek: :D
Scalia is evil. He dreams of a theocracy with himself as head inquisitor :eek: :D

As long as they don't pray in class, then we are on topic. :p

Prayer does work. I prayed to pass exams all the time and I did! :p

What would you call matthew 28:16-20?

Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

And for the prayer that you said, sometimes God's answer is no.

Key word: "teaching", not "forcing". Huge difference. But I digress.

As for the last prayer I said, I remember quite clearly, as it was the last day I was Christian. I asked for guidance. I not only got nothing from this, but I felt nothing. And so, many years later, here we are.

but he does have to appoint someone he likes, someone that agrees with him on somethings, would a democratic
president do any diffrent, I guess a republican conservative president should appoint a democratic liberal and a democratic liberal president should appoint a conservative republican.

But I do understand what you mean, still a great answer Seangolia.