Rob E Dangerously

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

Someone got a copy of Blue Orchid and got it to the station here (96.5). So they've played it over and over and i'm sorta neutral on it right now. Basically the chorus is like We had a relationship random lyrics (since the station played the song again) "You got a reaction, You got a reaction" "You tickled my orchid. You tickled my orchid and turned it blue" And now the guy doing the show is playing various other songs that he got cease & desists from companies for playing, since he'll probably get one for playing Blue Orchid

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

Don't fuck with me, bitches http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005171819,00.html

http://kctv5.com/Global/story.asp?S=3209269&nav=1PuZYed2

No, they just support giving people criminal punishment for what they think while committing a crime. MUCH better. -=Mike Such as?

John Titor has the civil war coming up soon. If the next civil war is one without states seceding, it'll probably be the largest civil war of that kind in our history. And I don't buy the "Howard Dean is a wild-eyed evil man who will cause a civil war" stuff. If anything causes a civil war, it'll be the extremes in the political realm

on the Census, you can be White and Hispanic. Hispanic is the only ethnicity listed on the Census, I think.