Rob E Dangerously

So he's so guilty that it's a crime that he wasn't guilty. Why even bother with trials when you can use the MikeSC detector to see how guilty somebody is.

You have such strong convictions, that you're willing to bend them liberally. "Perjury is bad, but.. um.. the other guys weren't so mad about it, so I guess i'll let it pass" Of course, you're also making massive assumptions. Like usual. If Perjury is alleged, is it good, or bad. "BUT CLINTON" isn't an answer. I think it's a concern if a crime is alleged and action should be taken. Action was taken in the Clinton case, which lead to an acquittal in the United States Senate. When was Ted convicted? just curious about that (Jaywalker? what a load of horseshit. It's not like Tom DeLay is some innocent roseycheeked Boy Scout)

You're the one claiming the opposite. (Of course, you're also assuming what I think about this) I'd say the Republicans have politicized this case. The Dems would just respond to that politicizing. You have ten ton balls for trying to claim the party politicizing this case is the Democrats. But then again, did we expect any thing less from you when it comes to projection?

Will you be more outraged if perjury is alleged? Or does the line of bad congressional things go like this Racism/Murder/Manslaughter Everything else

File this under "tying up loose ends" http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/news/11408758.htm File the following under "Projection" Of course, anybody who bothered to read anything more than the headline of the story would have read how this ties in more with opposing what the Republicans did in this case. (Strange how you find the LA times so reliable right now. Isn't it part of the evil MSM? I guess that's how the liberal media conspiracy~! rolls) Maybe you could claim the Democrats politicized this issue by claiming the Republicans politicized it. Any idea which party has members considering going after federal judges for not agreeing with them on the Schiavo case?

That all is so hiliarious. Among my favorites: Jump, "A plane crashed here", "It's him"

The Royals were introduced to the fury of Joe McEwing today

I suspect Kidz Bop is going to cover "Adam's Song" next or not

So essentially the deletion of something from a lawbook is really just creating a law allowing the opposite. No, it's telling the people and the legislature to fuck off and the courts will decide what is and what is not law. We all hate Judicial review. Without it, what would we have? And where did the entire concept of "judicial review" come from? Why, the Supreme Court INVENTED it for itself. Funny how that works. Strange how Congress never proposed a constitutional amendment to "correct" that. And deal with the outcry from the press? It's not worth the headache for Congress yet. Well.. that's conviction "We'll do what's right, unless we think the mean press would criticize us for it" Actually, I'm fairly sure that the Supreme Court can find amendments unconstitutional if they choose to. They can find part of the constitution to be unconstitutional? Riiiiiiiiiiiight. Wait.. I thought the COURT made the law. But, I guess now, you're claiming that the legislature made the law. Either way.. it's not an order. Which is different than the courts deciding law in what way, precisely? I'm pretty sure your POV is "overturning a law as being unconstitutional = deciding law". I could be wrong. Saying "If you don't change this in 6 months to what we want, it'll be what we want anyway" is dictating law. No, what they said was "if you do not change the law to comply with our decision within six months, it will be overturned" And the opposite could apply to that too. Care to reveal how? One could argue that STDs are transmitted though sodomy. Therefore harming others. Transmitted by individual choices. True. Even if there's also civil grounds for suit if one person did not reveal the STD in question. It's not totally a free ride for the "sodomy is safe" position. So there's a definition of life, agreed to by both sides, in this case? News to me If there's no definition --- why is it legal? Since people disagree on when life begins, abortion should be illegal? Just asking Let's look at worst case scenarios: Life begins at birth and abortion is illegal: Women are forced to carry pregnancies to term Life begins at conception and abortion is legal: Babies are being slaughtered. Ooh, simplistic. Yes, i'm sure it's just "women are forced to carry pregnancies to term", there aren't any other things involved with women who seek abortions. They just carry the pregnancy to term, whistle, have the kid, and move on.

So essentially the deletion of something from a lawbook is really just creating a law allowing the opposite. No, it's telling the people and the legislature to fuck off and the courts will decide what is and what is not law. We all hate Judicial review. Without it, what would we have? And where did the entire concept of "judicial review" come from? Why, the Supreme Court INVENTED it for itself. Funny how that works. Strange how Congress never proposed a constitutional amendment to "correct" that. Considering it's within their power. (Unless Constitutional amendments can be declared unconstitutional. Ha) Care to defend the utter bastardization of the interstate commerce clause by the courts? Such as in the decisions regarding the Civil Rights act? Or something else? I'm pretty sure the practice of changing a law to make it more constitutional (or creating a newer law) isn't that stunning. When the courts have the unchecked power to order a legislature to change laws --- yeah, you got a real problem with checks and balances. http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/04/gay.marriage/ So basically, they didn't order nothing. I bolded the part you apparently missed. I didn't miss it. It's not an order if you give someone an opportunity to do something. The court ruling wasn't taking effect for 180 days, so the legislature could rewrite their law and try to make it conform to the ruling. Mike, say I give you the opportunity to find tickets to a Hootie and the Blowfish concert in the sand at Myrtle Beach. That's an offer, not an order. If you don't do it, it'll be your loss. Which is different than the courts deciding law in what way, precisely? I'm pretty sure your POV is "overturning a law as being unconstitutional = deciding law". I could be wrong. Feel free to do one of the following a) mention a source for your claims b) mention the name of the judge You can see how I'm skeptical of your claims, right? And the opposite could apply to that too. Care to reveal how? One could argue that STDs are transmitted though sodomy. Therefore harming others. So there's a definition of life, agreed to by both sides, in this case? News to me If there's no definition --- why is it legal? Since people disagree on when life begins, abortion should be illegal? Just asking

So essentially the deletion of something from a lawbook is really just creating a law allowing the opposite. No, it's telling the people and the legislature to fuck off and the courts will decide what is and what is not law. We all hate Judicial review. Without it, what would we have? It's not "what is and is not law", that's just dishonest spin from you. It's "What is constitutional and what is not" I'm pretty sure the practice of changing a law to make it more constitutional (or creating a newer law) isn't that stunning. When the courts have the unchecked power to order a legislature to change laws --- yeah, you got a real problem with checks and balances. http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/04/gay.marriage/ So basically, they didn't order nothing. They gave the legislature six months to rewrite the law. You're making it sound like they would all go to prison if they didn't do as the court ordered. As opposed to what really happened, where the law wouldn't be there after that period. http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachus..._legal_in_mass/ Fire away on Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education. I'm guessing that the idea of "get in compliance with a court decision" isn't that unique. I'm sure there's some cases with schools and desegregation and Brown v. Board of Education from the 1950s too. Hmm, let's look at, oh, Kansas City. $1.7 BILLION spent on a busing plan by a judge. Yes, the JUDGE gave himself the power to spend the state's money --- which only pisses on the whole seperation of power thing (the legislature tends to have that power). It only took about 20 years for a court to FINALLY step in and say that the judge might have crossed the line. Might have? Pretty deceptive terminology for what really happened. http://slate.msn.com/id/1035/ I'm not quite sure, but I wouldn't be stunned if there weren't so much spent, considering the legal action that had to have come quickly out of that decision Nope. But Roe v Wade DID invent a national right to abortion on one of the flimsier pretenses in recent history. Wait.. overturning laws against Abortion = laws legalizing abortion but, overturning laws against sodomy doesn't equal laws legalizing sodomy? You're being far too light on courts there. One can easily argue that nobody is harmed by sodomy. And the opposite could apply to that too. Yeah, enforcement part is another tough part of enforcing the laws. Some people don't let that deter them. So there's a definition of life, agreed to by both sides, in this case? News to me

I doubt I will use the "You are allowed to burn flags law" (as established in United States v. Eichman) I also will not use the law created by Nix v. Hedden which made the tomato a vegatable. So essentially the deletion of something from a lawbook is really just creating a law allowing the opposite. I'm pretty sure the practice of changing a law to make it more constitutional (or creating a newer law) isn't that stunning. Fire away on Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education. I'm guessing that the idea of "get in compliance with a court decision" isn't that unique. I'm sure there's some cases with schools and desegregation and Brown v. Board of Education from the 1950s too. Nope. But Roe v Wade DID invent a national right to abortion on one of the flimsier pretenses in recent history. Wait.. overturning laws against Abortion = laws legalizing abortion but, overturning laws against sodomy doesn't equal laws legalizing sodomy? You're being far too light on courts there.

Name one law that judges have created Gay marriage in MA. Abortion legality. A right to privacy. Affirmative action (they have kinda shot down laws ending it) Illegals getting benefits. -=Mike ...I can go on... So, overturning a law against something is really creating a law allowing it? I guess under that POV, Lawrence v. Texas was really a law legalizing sodomy

Name one law that judges have created

Good luck on that Robot. I'm sure the answer to WWJD is "make a power grab"

Frist is whoring himself out because he wants to be President in 2008. Here's the banner for the event: Reese has a choice to make

My avatar is much more disturbing

Be Yourself is such a ballad, but I can dig it too.

Yeah, I think the station here played it close to 10 times within an hour, so my urge to kill went up slightly. "Hey Lazlo, I just missed the new White Stripes, can you play it again?" Dude, it's played like 10 times in a row! Hopefully the rest of the album can start kicking ass. I think Meg White's face is cute

I would nail Meg White And here's the song on mp3: http://s10.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=2HETPX1...0A1IY6KVQYQONCL

Cerebus, feel free to unleash all the dirty secrets of the Connecticut Republican Party. j/k At least somebody is whole-heartedly thinking the Dems have a backbone. Anyways, it appears the filibuster is being used as an issue to get the Conservative Christians out in force. In their POV, the filibuster is being used against Christians. So the filibuster fight is getting entangled with the Southern Baptist/Assemblies of God part of the Republican party. It sounds like you have a lot of problems, but I can't see the solution. I guess it's a public relations counteroffensive. Or using the mute button on Dems or something.

Join us in the Democratic Party, it'll be less awkward over time. And some in the Dems hate how they've went for corporate donations. So apparently corporations have no proper party at the moment. Hear Hear *nods* So, what suggests that we'll see that happen? So, what do you want Bill Frist to do? He's moving towards destroying the filibuster, he's not backing down on that. Is there a way, in your POV, to stop Harry Reid?

Popeye's is too far away for me to go there consistantly

does it fuck up the 99 cent thing if you get the Snacker combo?

Operation "Burn down Southeast High" takes a blow http://www.thekansascitychannel.com/news/4381885/detail.html