I have come to realize...

[El Kabong]

But the definition of how they view the Constitution would tell you that before even looking at that evidence. It doesn't mean the laws they shot down didn't need to be shot down....and that's the information I am after. What laws specifically did they get rid of that offend you so deeply oh insufferable one.

Also you never show any love for Ronald Reagan yet he put Sandra Day O'Connor on the bench.

[Kirkland Laing]

But the definition of how they view the Constitution would tell you that before even looking at that evidence. It doesn't mean the laws they shot down didn't need to be shot down....and that's the information I am after. What laws specifically did they get rid of that offend you so deeply oh insufferable one.

Also you never show any love for Ronald Reagan yet he put Sandra Day O'Connor on the bench.

It doesn't matter which laws they struck down, it's the fact that they "legislated from the bench" by striking down laws a democratically elected body had passed into law. Whether those laws meet with your or my approval or not is irrelevant, they were passed into law by your democratically elected represenatives.

And Reagan was a traitor who put America on the road to bankrupcy. They should dig him up and charge him with treason.

[El Kabong]

You post was 100% biased bullshit....FACT

[Kirkland Laing]

You post was 100% biased bullshit....FACT

This is coming from the man whose sum total of political and economic knowledge comes from a four hundred pound drug-adicted radio broadcaster.

I'm sure you can find a link to a copy of the study on the .edu homepage of the Yale law professor who wrote it. Why don't you read through it and then point out where you believe he's incorrect.

[El Kabong]

I'm not saying his stats are incorrect (they are just insignificant) I'm saying that just by the way the justices you mentioned view the Constitution then it is not surprising at all that they would be the ones saying we need fewer laws instead of more laws it is by definition the way they view the Constitution but I am wasting my time telling you that you are wrong much less pointing out the fact that that story appeared in the New York Times

[Trainer Monkey]

I'm not saying his stats are incorrect (they are just insignificant) I'm saying that just by the way the justices you mentioned view the Constitution then it is not surprising at all that they would be the ones saying we need fewer laws instead of more laws it is by definition the way they view the Constitution but I am wasting my time telling you that you are wrong much less pointing out the fact that that story appeared in the New York Times

So wha?,It appeared in the New York Times,so did the report of Ernhardts death. Dale return from the grave and win some races I dont know about?

[El Kabong]

So wha?,It appeared in the New York Times,so did the report of Ernhardts death. Dale return from the grave and win some races I dont know about?

So the Times has a slant ont heir stories as most papers do these days.....which is why they are losing money.

But that is beside the point of the stats being insignificant

[Kirkland Laing]

I'm not saying his stats are incorrect (they are just insignificant) I'm saying that just by the way the justices you mentioned view the Constitution then it is not surprising at all that they would be the ones saying we need fewer laws instead of more laws it is by definition the way they view the Constitution but I am wasting my time telling you that you are wrong much less pointing out the fact that that story appeared in the New York Times

Yet another irrelevant argument. One again : it's irrelevant which laws they struck down, what's relevant is that they struck them down -- or "legislated from the bench" -- to change legislation that had been democratically enacted. What part of this don't you understand?


Secondly, it isn't a "story", it's a peer-reviewed academic study. The NYT is a publication that's full of facts and evidence every day. You might try reading it once in a while.

[El Kabong]

....excuse me, what was that again?