ie., that the local child protective services petitioned to keep the kid on chemo instead of letting him die?
I think you're missing my questions, 1st about how you know so much about these things without reviewing the evidence, and 2nd, is there anything that you would regard as child abuse?
See, the idea of a restraining order is that the kid can die anytime, but he can't always be brought back. See, I have to explain these things to fellows like you.
And for some reasons involving 2 days of testimony and all the preliminary issues, the judge hasn't decided whether the parents are, or are not abusive.
So, you must figure you know better than the judge, because you're a decider, I guess, and you don't need no steenkin knowledge.
GW and his whole administration have touted and taken conservatism to a new level.
Republicans/conservatives have historically stood on the side of the Second Amendment.
With all the GOP strength over the last 6 years; why haven't the many oppressive legislations and limitations for LAW ABIDING citizens to purchase and CARRY guns been addressed and relaxed?
In an age of such heightened awareness for "terrorists" among us; wouldn’t availing the "militia" of Smiths, Jones and Rameriz’s with the fire power to keep our streets, cities and shores safe be paramount.
Leftwingers need not pipe in on this one. We all know ya’ll hate guns.
I want to hear from the party that supposedly supports “The right to keep and bear arms” as to why the pendulum has not demonstrably swung since Clinton's anti-Second Amendment administration.
-- Modified on 7/22/2006 9:36:11 PM
""GW and his whole administration have touted and taken conservatism to a new level.""
Churchianity is not conservatism.
It's also flawed for another reason: as with most any conservative discussions about the 2nd Amendment they conveniently delete or ignore the first part of the Amendement: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the secuirity of the free state..."
miltia does NOT mean army.
What I want to know is, can I have my D-30? http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/d-30-howitzer_003.jpg Or does the 2nd amendment exclude crew-served weapons? And how would you know that from its plain language? Or is that one of those things you just know?
"Churchianity"! Gotta love it.
But you have to admit there are correlations, ie that establishment groups tend to band together and reinforce each other; and that the organization of religion has a powerful tribal effect, and in fact in many cases may only serve the purpose of identifying a social group. Listen to a Jesus freak affecting Jesus talk and tell me they aren't doing it to distinguish themselves from the sinners, ie everybody else.
Remember, most people use "conservative" / "liberal" comparisons to signify particular contemporary ideological patterns, BUT that is NOT the plain meanings of the words.
I'm guessing either a very political Blue state (yellow or black on the NRA map) or maybe a hole.
From NRA site...
Before 1987 there were only 10 "right to carry" states. Now there are 40.
29 new RTC states since 1987. Of these, 21 previously prohibited carrying; nine (indicated with an asterisk, below) had restrictively-administered discretionary-issue systems. 1989: Oregon, Penna. (Phila. included in 1995), and West Virginia (in Georgia a judicial ruling enforced “shall issue” statewide); 1990: Idaho and Mississippi; 1991: Montana; 1994: Alaska, Arizona, Tennessee and Wyoming; 1995: Arkansas, Nevada*, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah* and Virginia*; 1996: Kentucky, Louisiana* and South Carolina*; 2001: Michigan*; 2003: Colorado*; Iowa* (by fairly administering its discretionary-issue system), New Mexico, Minnesota* and Missouri; 2004: Ohio; 2006: Kansas, Nebraska.
-- Modified on 7/23/2006 11:05:37 AM
-- Modified on 7/23/2006 4:58:35 PM
GWB lifted the assault weapons ban. A lot of the gun control is from local governments. City, state, etc. He would be overstepping if he tried to control local laws. I hate the courts, but they need to decide if the local govs are violating the 2nd ammendment. Wash DC is the shining example of why gun control doesn't work. Their crime rate continues to go up and they have the toughest gun laws in the country.
PS- Drew Carey called a Libertarian a Republican that likes to get high. LOL
When It’s something like the California Medical Marijuana initiative.
California voted in legal "medical" marijuana and DC did everything just short of a full military land, sea, and air strike to let the State legislature know that "they will atone".
For 30 years the FEDs held the 50 States hostage to the 55mph limit. This also was clear manipulation and usurping of Federal highway funding and constitutional 10th amendment precepts.
the right wants to take this country is found in this post. Mr. Neutron says, "I hate the courts."
They hate the Constitution. They hate the Bill of Rights. They hate America.
Well, maybe you are.
Your flat assertions always make for great levity but also contribute very little to the debate.
"By contribute very little" you must mean he is absolutely useless to the debate. This Judd Nelson fan has never brought anything but flames to this board. Completely useless.
I hate the courts that act like a legislature and create laws. If you actually loved the constitution Bender, you would hate the courts too.
You should not hate the courts, but you should rightly be very concerned about the over reaching the court has done to create rights where they don't exist, enact law by judicial fiat over the the various states and other branches of government, and impose their own preferences in social engineering through their decisions taking it from the hands of the duly elected legislatures. that should scare you. This is more a conservative vs socialist issue than it is Repblican vs Democrat issue (although the parties tend to line up more or less on the expected sides).
Gender Bender sees the Constitution as an article of convenience to get around if it is in the "greater good". there is no better way to do that than to stack the courts with like minded Judicial activists.
A court is forcing a 16-year-old cancer patient to take chemotherapy. He did it before and he would rather die. He begged his parents for some alternative therapies instead. After much soul searching they agreed. If he was 18 he wouldn't need permission.
The courts have mandated him to inject chemotherapy into his body even though he doesn't want it. Yea, I fucking hate them!
so we can see what the story is.
Oops, it's a minor and it's in probate court, and it's not open to the public, and this is all somebody's imagination, right?
So - could we find something verifiable? Surely, with all the courts in the US, you could find SOMETHING verifiable, no?
So, do you even know this fellow's name?
Did you think I made this story up?
because the article you cited says the court took 2 days of testimony, and has NOT issued a decision.
So yes, now that you ask, you did make it up.
I realize that there are plenty of folks like you who don't need to read the petitions, listen to the evidence, or read the decisions to know what is right. We should have more deciders like you, folks who know what is right and wrong from across 4 time zones - all we need to tell you is the name and birthday, and you know what's going on, right?
I'm not even gonna ask if you'd give a shit about parents doing exorcisms when their kids have contagious diseases.
The decision I mentioned earlier that angered me has already happened. Read it again s-l-o-w-l-y.
"In all, the judge heard 11 hours of testimony before the hearing concluded late Tuesday. At issue is if the teen can make his own medical decisions and whether he can keep living with his parents and four siblings on Chincoteague, an island off Virginia's Eastern Shore.
The judge is expected to issue a written decision by July 18."
Appeals courts don't take evidence, dolt. There was an RO and another preliminary motion.
ENTIRELY APART FROM THAT, how do you rate being angry before you sift through the evidence?
Oh, I get it, you're one of those psychics. One of those 100 mile experts, ie, an expert who qualifies by being more than 100 miles from the problem.
Next question: so how do you feel about exorcisms to treat cancer in children? Is that OK? Is there any sort of parental neglect that you would object to?
ie., that the local child protective services petitioned to keep the kid on chemo instead of letting him die?
I think you're missing my questions, 1st about how you know so much about these things without reviewing the evidence, and 2nd, is there anything that you would regard as child abuse?
See, the idea of a restraining order is that the kid can die anytime, but he can't always be brought back. See, I have to explain these things to fellows like you.
And for some reasons involving 2 days of testimony and all the preliminary issues, the judge hasn't decided whether the parents are, or are not abusive.
So, you must figure you know better than the judge, because you're a decider, I guess, and you don't need no steenkin knowledge.
You mean like those activist judges on the Supreme Court who came up with the bastardized interpretation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment in Bush v. Gore?
you would understand where the courts fit in, and you wouldn't say something like that.
For starters, ask yourself, what would YOU do in a judge's position? Then, I'm going to start dumping the facts of what they deal with and why on you, until you get exasperated and everybody else realizes you're not up to the task, and don't begin to know what they do, let alone why.
There is nothing wrong with hating the actions of some courts. I assume that is what you realy meant.
Far too often the Judicial branches (state and federal) have taken it upon themselves to "solve" a problem, when they could have (and SHOULD have) sent it back to the legislature, instructing them to take action. A perfectly legit. way to handle many situations, instead of writing legislation from the bench.
Oh and Jacko, your slipping...where's the "you didn't serve so shut up" line?
how do you figure a court can order a legislature to do anything?
I suppose all of this is easy if you're ignorant enough. Book learning just eliminates possible solutions, so for God's sake, please don't try to figure out WTF you're talking about.
Exactly WTF do you think a court is supposed to do, except solve a problem among litigants? Can you cite ANY example of ANY court writing legislation? Citations are fine.
Brown v Board of ED? Get over it already. The Civil War is over and your side lost.
"Judicial branches (state and federal)...could have (and SHOULD have) sent it back to the legislature, instructing them to take action."
Wherever did you get the idea that courts could order any legislator to visit the restroom, let alone write legislation?
Do you realize that Federal courts may NOT, constitutionally, do ANYTHING except rule on an actual case or controversy, and what you suggest is unconstitutional under Federal law?
Have you EVER had any sort of civics or government class in high school?
I get a big kick out of conservatives who are always crying about schools which so obviously failed them (by not educating them with a 2x4 upside their head) and then crying about their own ignorance, because they can't buy a book and READ IT!!!
Sheesh. What a bunch of jokers.
debating what you "thought" I said, disconnected from reality gets us nowhere. I NEVER said that courts could or should "order" any legislature. However, that does not preclude judicial opinions from speaking directly to legislatures. Often times their decisions explain or "instruct" what legislation is required to allow the court to swing one way or the other.
The recent eminient domain case decided by the Sumpreme Court is a good example. It stated that the state legislatures were free to enact restrictions that if they had been in place would have altered their decision.
-- Modified on 7/29/2006 10:23:22 PM
that eliminating gun control in DC wouldn't get the same results as in the Congo, now, do you?
I think the conclusion is unavoidable - there is a definite correlation between the population problem, global warming and all that sort of problem, and all the different types of gun control laws that countries have.
Guns are one of those things like insomnia, give them enough time, the problem cures itself.
You are a very unique person.