[GoneForNow]

Originally Posted by Rollin' Rog

GB all that means is that the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights apply to the states. The Court interprets what they are, how they apply, and what rises to the level of a constitutional right. You don't like the broad interpretation. Fine.

But this thread is not about you and your opinions -- despite where others may have taken it. It is about Alito and where he is likely to lead the court.

So sorry you cannot address that. I won't torture you any more. Did enough of that in the "Torture" thread, and I don't want to run afoul of any international conventions

It isn't that I like or dislike how the Court interprets application of the Bill of Rights through the 14th Amendment on the 50 states. What I was addressing is your fundamental error that the 14th Amendment creates "new" rights. It doesn't. (Technically it makes us citizens of the US as well as the state we we are domiciled in but that is splitting the proverbial hair.) The 14th Amendment allows the federal courts to overturn discriminatory laws passed by the states (as well as many other matters).

[stormylin]

Originally Posted by Rollin' Rog

GB all that means is that the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights apply to the states. The Court interprets what they are, how they apply, and what rises to the level of a constitutional right. You don't like the broad interpretation. Fine.

But this thread is not about you and your opinions -- despite where others may have taken it. It is about Alito and where he is likely to lead the court.

So sorry you cannot address that. I won't torture you any more. Did enough of that in the "Torture" thread, and I don't want to run afoul of any international conventions

Rollin Rog, don't spare GB from torture!! He deserves every bit of it!!

Rolling Rog you quoted GB:" all that means is that the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights apply to the states".

The fact of the matter is: Federal law supersedes state law. Any state law that conflicts with federal law is void.

I have to go back and read the Constitution, but Rolling Rog, you are exactly right. These two yammering fools need to go back and get more time with their other halves.

Give me a break. If they can't 'interpret' what is being said in their own house???????????!!LOL!! They certainly can't interpret what you are saying!!!!!!!!!

[stormylin]

Originally Posted by gbrumb

Throw out statistics and look around though. It is pretty clear that people are working smarter and making more money.

That is everyone except stormylin.

GB this is all I have to say to you You are just lucky I missed that before you turned in!! Nighty Night GB!!!

[sglv]

Originally Posted by Mulder

You can't go by what you "think" is happening, you have to look at the actual purchasing power. And never in our history have so many people in this country been able to buy so much.

Well, except for the fact that a lot of that purchasing power is due to credit cards. If the "average" person had to pay cash for all their purchases, with the exception of cars and homes, the average consumer would spend far less money than they currently spend.

[stormylin]

Originally Posted by sglv

Well, except for the fact that a lot of that purchasing power is due to credit cards. If the "average" person had to pay cash for all their purchases, with the exception of cars and homes, the average consumer would spend far less money than they currently spend.

Hi SGLV!! I think I gave this example when my grandfather bought the Indian motorcycle. I think he paid for it brand spanking new at $25.00. There was no interest. He paid two payments straight to the manufaturer and it was paid in full. If this site allows for scans, I will be glad to share this with everyone tomorrow. Now, you buy a home-- I can tell you I paid the full value of what I borrowed to purchase my home in about 6 years. Though, the payments are extended to 30 years. I can only say one thing.......if I had the same luxury as grandpa, I would own my house in 7 years (k, six). Purchashing power is a fantasy........Credit and credit card companies are thieves.

[stormylin]

(On the topic of Poverty rates are rising) Mulder said "Rising from what? If you say its risen the last few years, yes that's accurate"


I believe that means Mulder states the Stormylin is Right!! LOL!!


It is not only Mulder that understands finances. And Mulder better not underestimate who his challangers are I couldn't resist Mulder!!

[Rollin' Rog]

Well if all GB is yammering about is what constitutes "new", we are wasting our time on semantics -- "new" is in the eye of the beholder. When these rights are interpreted to cover laws or policies not previously judged in their domain -- then one might apply the term "new" to the interpretation whether the underlying "right" is new or not.

That's fine with me. Let the reactionaries try to convince the court that it ought to roll back these interpretations 50 years. ROFLMAO

[stormylin]

Originally Posted by Rollin' Rog

Well if all GB is yammering about is what constitutes "new", we are wasting our time on semantics -- "new" is in the eye of the beholder. When these rights are interpreted to cover laws or policies not previously judged in their domain -- then one might apply the term "new" to the interpretation whether the underlying "right" is new or not.

That's fine with me. Let the reactionaries try to convince the court that it ought to roll back these interpretations 50 years. ROFLMAO

Rolling Rog, I have agreed with Everything you have stated until now.........'reactionaries do convince courts" but don't let them convince us of 'their interprepretations".

Rights are certainly not new, and there is nothing to be interpreted. They are simplistic. Guys that have a motive of politics or law would like you to feel differently. I reject that their flamboyant attempts to 'interpret' is anything else other then a self fulfilling proficy. (SP! Like who cares!!)

The GB's and the Mulder's of the world are living on borrowed time.

[Rollin' Rog]

There are many issues that will be coming before the Bush configured Supreme Court in the next few terms. And I have no doubt that liberals will be disappointed with the rulings on some of them.

What I am confident of is that there will be no wholesale rollback of protections on privacy or other civil rights -- as might be the case if the court were now construed of those who believe that nothing not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights is protected. The Court will continue to rule by interpretation and interpolation. Whether it creates "new" protections, modulates old, or simply moves sideways -- there is not going to be any thunderous change of direction that gives heart to the right wing zealots of any nature.

Smart lawyers should know how to play this court in coming years. Issues such as legalization of medical marijuana, assisted suicide, deference to states on many issues of regulation -- are all fair game.

Abortion may be one of them. There is room for diversity. I am not an "all or nothing" ideologue. Personally I'm a bit of a pro-lifer to this extent: if someone of proved desire and ability is willing to register as a potential adoptive parent for an unborn child -- sight unseen -- I would say that child should be brought to term. What the "pro-lifers" do not seem to recognize is that it is not respect for human life to bring one into this world absent the love and warmth it needs for healthy development.

[bassetman]

The house of cards is falling

[angelize56]

BAKLAVA BREAK

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/kiss.html

[~Candy~]

Originally Posted by Rollin' Rog

Abortion may be one of them. There is room for diversity. I am not an "all or nothing" ideologue. Personally I'm a bit of a pro-lifer to this extent: if someone of proved desire and ability is willing to register as a potential adoptive parent for an unborn child -- sight unseen -- I would say that child should be brought to term. What the "pro-lifers" do not seem to recognize is that it is not respect for human life to bring one into this world absent the love and warmth it needs for healthy development.

Good point Rog. I'd like to see all the pro-lifers who stage their protests in front of abortion clinics to put their name on the adoption list. Either put up or shut up and mind your own business instead of MINE

[linskyjack]

Yes Aca, and they might want to kick in a little more in tax support for all the many new unwanted kids who will be born into poverty.

[~Candy~]

Good point!

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by stormylin

I couldn't resist Mulder!!

Don't feel bad--there are not many women who can!