Liberal Forum

Which quite arguably is the correct Constitutional decision, which was the accepted judicial for more than 200 years. So? Why shouldn't it be up to our elected representatives to rule on it or not? You liberal-leftists demand that almost every aspect of Americans' lives by micro-managed by law. I wasn't referring to law or the Constitution at all, but to the reality that it's not about "a woman's body." Here's the key part of my post, which typically you cut out and ignored. Your logic is a bipolar match between a couple of cannibals. You keep claiming to be about freedom, but ask "Why shouldn't it be up to our elected representatives to rule on it or not?" when it comes to private sex acts? Liberals aren't about "micromanaging". We don't think deadly weapons should be sold to just anyone, for instance. That's just common sense. We don't think big industry ought to get away with poisoning the air and water. More common sense. Where is the micromanaging from liberals that conservatives are so famous for? Which of us really believes in freedom?

Apparently in Clem's imagination a 'personhood amendment' stating that life begins at conception was added to the Constitution.Clem: I wasn't referring to law or the Constitution at all, but to the reality that it's not about "a woman's body."Why didn't you respond to bingster's post?When did a first trimester zygote obtain constitutional rights?I always enjoy the jackazz opinion that the "life" guaranteed by the Constitution refers to a zygote in the first trimester. When did that happen exactly? The original Constitution only referred to land owning white guys. We only practiced, fully, all "people" except for gays in 1965 with the Civil Rights Voting Act. When did the zygote get the protection that doesn't even apply completely to gays yet? What Supreme Court decision or land mark legislation caused this to happen, or was it born in the bible thumping childish minds of the "Born Again" crowd? Funny thing about that too, you have to be "born again" to be saved......"Born".....The argument is over when life begins. You know, the "life" that is guaranteed by the Constitution?

What law? What are you talking about? He's not trying to get a law passed. He's trying to get a federal appeals court to reverse their decision that struck down Virginia's sodomy law as unconstitutional. So what? For over 200 years, the Constitution was never held to rule on this at all. Why shouldn't it be left to our elected representatives, not to an unaccountable court? Summary In a 6-3 opinion, the Court struck down a Texas statute that criminalized homosexual sodomy. In doing so, the Court overturned the 17-year-old precedent of Bowers v. Hardwick, the 1986 Supreme Court case declaring the Constitution does not speak to, and does not forbid states from prohibiting homosexual conduct a crime..... Indeed, sodomy was prohibited by all 13 states when they ratified the Bill of Rights. With their invention of this new “right,” the judges conferred constitutional status to a policy issue not even addressed by the Constitution, thereby removing it from the democratic process where it rightly belongs. http://www.heritage....awrence-v-texas

So what? For over 200 years, the Constitution was never held to rule on this at all. Why shouldn't it be left to our elected representatives, not to an unaccountable court? So, do I read your post to mean that Kennedy was wrong to say that a "right to privacy" is guaranteed by the Constitution? You accuse liberals of "micromanaging" but don't believe in my privacy? Do you know what "micromanaging" even means?

So what? For over 200 years, the Constitution was never held to rule on this at all.Why shouldn't it be left to our elected representatives, not to an unaccountable court?I guess you missed the part of your own link (which of course is from the right wing Heritage Foundation) that said, "the Court overturned the 17-year-old precedent of Bowers v. Hardwick"The last ruling is the one that counts Puss, and that was the 2003 ruling in Lawrence v. Texas.Cuccinelli had a chance to bring Virginia's Crimes Against Nature (anti-sodomy) law into line with the Lawrence v Texas ruling, and he declined to do that, because of his bigotry towards gay people.I find it curious that you go around saying that it's us Libs who want 'almost every aspect of Americans' lives by micro-managed by law' when you are the one who thinks that the government should be able to dictate what consenting adults in a private relationship do in their bedroom.That's the absolute height of micro-management of people's lives.

I wasn't referring to law or the Constitution at all, but to the reality that it's not about "a woman's body." Why didn't you respond to bingster's post? When did a first trimester zygote obtain constitutional rights? I didn't respond because he's psychotic. I never claimed a fetus had Constitutional rights. But it is abhorrent that actual life should be defined by an unaccountable Supreme Court. It should be left to our elected representatives as it was for over 200 years. Liberals aren't about "micromanaging". How hilarious. Look at the liberal agenda, and for many decades it has been about micromanaging the most important issues and smallest details of Americans' lives by force of federal law under penalty of fine or imprisonment. Get a freaking clue. Take a look at liberal law and proposed liberal law, and almost everything you'll see is just that. How can you be so blind?

I didn't respond because he's psychotic. I never claimed a fetus had Constitutional rights. But it is abhorrent that actual life should be defined by an unaccountable Supreme Court. It should be left to our elected representatives as it was for over 200 years. How hilarious. Look at the liberal agenda, and for many decades it has been about micromanaging the most important issues and smallest details of Americans' lives by force of federal law under penalty of fine or imprisonment. Get a freaking clue. Take a look at liberal law and proposed liberal law, and almost everything you'll see is just that. How can you be so blind? I'm psychotic? We want laws to ALLOW freedoms! We don't think elected officials should dictate what we do with our lives. You're the one who is hilarious! You think it's ok for the state to tell you how to have sex! There isn't anything even close to this in the liberal agenda! If you think I'm blind, it's because you are incapable of rational thought: dumb.The Supreme Court should dictate definitions of life, marriage, etc... when moonbats like you, Clem, want to dictate out of your Bible.

Why didn't you respond to bingster's post?I didn't respond because he's psychotic.****.You run around here whining about how you want serious debate, and then as soon as someone challenges you, you engage is childish name calling. You're the biggest phony around. You have no interest in any kind of serious discussion.All you want to do is go around tooting your own horn about your supposed intellectual superiority, insisting that you know everything there is to know about everything while displaying your ignorance on a wide variety of subjects.As soon as someone gets the best of you, you turn into a five year old, labeling them as a 'liar' or a 'moonbat'.I never claimed a fetus had Constitutional rights.No, you only said 'a fetus has a separate set of genes and is a separate life' and called it 'the "life" that is guaranteed by the Constitution'.Do you think we can't read Jackhole?How hilarious. Look at the liberal agenda, and for many decades it has been about micromanaging the most important issues and smallest details of Americans' lives by force of federal law under penalty of fine or imprisonment.We don't want to lock people up for having anal or oral sex.

I'm psychotic? We want laws to ALLOW freedoms! We don't think elected officials should dictate what we do with our lives. You're the one who is hilarious! You think it's ok for the state to tell you how to have sex! There isn't anything even close to this in the liberal agenda! If you think I'm blind, it's because you are incapable of rational thought: dumb. Are you blind or stupid? If politicians pass an unpopular law, they can be voted out of office. Yes, there is relative freedom in that. If the Supreme Court rules on something with which you disagree, how can you remedy it? It's almost impossible, so there has been a huge infringement on your freedom. The Supreme Court should dictate definitions of life, marriage, etc... when moonbats like you, Clem, want to dictate out of your Bible. You're absolutely clueless. My Bible? I'm not arguing in favor of particular issues like sodomy laws or anti-abortion laws, just advocating that they be decided by elected representatives, not by an unaccountable court. The Supreme Court is supposed to rule on the Constitution and law, nothing beyond that.

Are you blind or stupid? If politicians pass an unpopular law, they can be voted out of office. Yes, there is relative freedom in that. If the Supreme Court rules on something with which you disagree, how can you remedy it? It's almost impossible, so there has been a huge infringement on your freedom. You're absolutely clueless. My Bible? I'm not arguing in favor of particular issues like sodomy laws or anti-abortion laws, just advocating that they be decided by elected representatives, not by an unaccountable court. The Supreme Court is supposed to rule on the Constitution and law, nothing beyond that. You do have a point when it comes to the difficulty of overturning a decision made by the Supreme Court. It's difficult, but not impossible. Usually, however, they do rule as per the Constitution. Most Supreme Court justices do believe that the right of privacy lives in the Constitution and they continue to rule in that direction. They also understand that "equal protection" applies to all people in this country regardless of sex, race, and sexual preference. That's why they surely will rule in support of gay marriage. There is at least some consistancy in the Supreme Court decisions. There is none of this consistancy in the laws made by the politicians. My rights should not be at the mercy of the changing moods of the electorate. I believe the Supreme Court is doing it's job and is quite successful in stopping the ignorant politicians from having their way.

You do have a point when it comes to the difficulty of overturning a decision made by the Supreme Court. It's difficult, but not impossible. Usually, however, they do rule as per the Constitution. Most Supreme Court justices do believe that the right of privacy lives in the Constitution and they continue to rule in that direction. It should have absolutely nothing with what they "believe." They're supposed to apply the Constitution and the law. I'm glad though that you see my point. Imagine it was a conservative majority that found new "rights" with no basis in the Constitution that grossly infringed on liberal philosophy. That's what so angers conservatives. They also understand that "equal protection" applies to all people in this country regardless of sex, race, and sexual preference. That's why they surely will rule in support of gay marriage. Which once again imposes non-existent "rights" that have never been found in the Constitution on half the country. With huge implications for society as a whole. There is at least some consistancy in the Supreme Court decisions. There is none of this consistancy in the laws made by the politicians. My rights should not be at the mercy of the changing moods of the electorate. I believe the Supreme Court is doing it's job and is quite successful in stopping the ignorant politicians from having their way. "Consistency?" There had never been a right to an abortion. There has never been a right to homosexual marriage. There has never a right to sodomy. To cite just a few relatively new rulings. No, the liberal justices have not been very consistent at all. With effectively no recourse by those who oppose this.

I'm not arguing in favor of particular issues like sodomy laws or anti-abortion laws, just advocating that they be decided by elected representatives, not by an unaccountable court.And what's to stop religious zealots like Ken Cuccinelli from imposing their 'morals' on all of us through legislation?I hope Terry McAuliffe whips his ***.

I'm not arguing in favor of particular issues like sodomy laws or anti-abortion laws, just advocating that they be decided by elected representatives, not by an unaccountable court. And what's to stop religious zealots like Ken Cuccinelli from imposing their 'morals' on all of us through legislation? Uh, it's called the "legislature." You know, legislation has to pass a legislature? Duh. And given that you liberal-leftists have massively assaulted Americans' freedom for decades, you're hardly one to bleat about it. Half of Americans pay roughly half their income in taxes, without a peep from moonbats like you. I hope Terry McAuliffe whips his ***. Just what Virginia needs, a corrupt hack from the Clinton years.

...non-existent "rights" that have never been found in the Constitution on half the country.You mean like in the Citizens United decision?Where in the Constitution does it say that money equals speech?Just what Virginia needs, a corrupt hack from the Clinton years. If McAuliffe is elected governor of your state, I will be doing a happy dance for a week.

...non-existent "rights" that have never been found in the Constitution on half the country.You mean like in the Citizens United decision?Where in the Constitution does it say that money equals speech?Money? What the heck are you babbling about? Obama's lawyers argued that on the basif of McCain-Feingold that they had the ability to ban books and movies.And what is it you don't understand about the following crystal clear words?Congress shall make no law.....abridging the freedom of speechGosh, what does "no law" mean, moonbat? Half of Americans pay roughly half their income in taxes, without a peep from moonbats like you.

It should have absolutely nothing with what they "believe." They're supposed to apply the Constitution and the law. I'm glad though that you see my point. Imagine it was a conservative majority that found new "rights" with no basis in the Constitution that grossly infringed on liberal philosophy. That's what so angers conservatives. Which once again imposes non-existent "rights" that have never been found in the Constitution on half the country. With huge implications for society as a whole. "Consistency?" There had never been a right to an abortion. There has never been a right to homosexual marriage. There has never a right to sodomy. To cite just a few relatively new rulings. No, the liberal justices have not been very consistent at all. With effectively no recourse by those who oppose this. Sure, it would be nice if there was a consistent "belief" in what the constitution means, but there isn't. Conservatives generally don't agree that privacy is a right living in the constitution, while most liberal judges do believe it. But, you point does not change anything. Court decision can be overturn and have been. They are a hell of a lot more consistent than the politicians. Duh, clem, there is no "right" to sodomy, but there is a right to do what you want in the privacy of your own home that doesn't hurt anyone else. Justice Kenedy argued that the Constitution embodies a right to private homosexual sodomy in the liberty interests of the Due Process Clause in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and that the statute (the bill you guys are talking about) furthered no legitimate state interests that could justify an intrusion into such a private relationship. Equal protection will justify gay marriage and if I remember correctly, the privacy concept was the foundation for Roe v Wade. Just because you don't understand the constitution to mean something doesn't mean you're right. That's why we have the Supreme Court. Your opinion doesn't, in the big picture, really matter.

There has never (been) a right to sodomy.To cite just a few relatively new rulings. No, the liberal justices have not been very consistent at all.The Lawrence v Texas ruling which declared anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional was a 6-3 decision.The six were Anthony Kennedy, John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sandra Day O'Conner.Of the six, four were appointed by Republican presidents.Liberal justices, ROFLMAO.And what is it you don't understand about the following crystal clear words?Congress shall make no law.....abridging the freedom of speechYou didn't answer my question.Where in the Constitution does it say that money equals speech?The Supreme Court is supposed to rule on the Constitution and law, nothing beyond that.So where in the Constitution does it say that money equals speech?

Maybe I should be able to bribe the cops. I'm just exercising my right of speech.

Maybe I should be able to bribe the cops. I'm just exercising my right of speech.Well if you follow Clem's logic, I guess you should.

Most Supreme Court justices do believe that the right of privacy lives in the Constitution and they continue to rule in that direction. They also understand that "equal protection" applies to all people in this country regardless of sex, race, and sexual preference. That's why they surely will rule in support of gay marriage.Which once again imposes non-existent "rights" that have never been found in the Constitution or half the country.With huge implications for society as a whole.Just out of sheer curiousity, what might those 'huge implications for society' be if the SCOTUS rules in favor of marriage equality?And please don't go the whole 'people will want to marry animals' next route.Although judging by your approval of bestiality porn, I'm guessing you'd be in favor of that.