Alaska_Darin_Is_Gay Posted December 12, 2009 Posted December 12, 2009 Isn't Obama sneaky, trying to pass this off over the weekend. Had enough America? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1260578816...=googlenews_wsj
DC Tom Posted December 12, 2009 Posted December 12, 2009 Isn't Obama sneaky, trying to pass this off over the weekend. Had enough America? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1260578816...=googlenews_wsj Yeah, that Obama's really sneaky, having absolutely no involvement with a judge's enforcement of the Constitution. That clever bastard.
Nanker Posted December 12, 2009 Posted December 12, 2009 Yeah, that Obama's really sneaky, having absolutely no involvement with a judge's enforcement of the Constitution. That clever bastard. Oh the levers his tentacles pull... inscrutable!
Magox Posted December 12, 2009 Posted December 12, 2009 From a legal standpoint it may have been the right decision, what I am interested in seeing is if the Senate will continue the funding, my guess is no.
EasternOHBillsFan Posted December 12, 2009 Posted December 12, 2009 Isn't Obama sneaky, trying to pass this off over the weekend. Had enough America? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1260578816...=googlenews_wsj Nope, I haven't! Four more years of keeping conservative Republicans out of the Oval Office is worth the price.
DC Tom Posted December 12, 2009 Posted December 12, 2009 Nope, I haven't! Four more years of keeping conservative Republicans out of the Oval Office is worth the price. You might actually be a bigger idiot than Donald. You two should just get a room.
keepthefaith Posted December 12, 2009 Posted December 12, 2009 Nope, I haven't! Four more years of keeping conservative Republicans out of the Oval Office is worth the price. So you feel that ACORN should continue to receive taxpayer funds?
Alaska_Darin_Is_Gay Posted December 12, 2009 Author Posted December 12, 2009 Yeah, that Obama's really sneaky, having absolutely no involvement with a judge's enforcement of the Constitution. That clever bastard. Don't be so naive. At the very least the judge was just another Obamanoid cut from the same ideological cloth as the Messiah himself.
DC Tom Posted December 12, 2009 Posted December 12, 2009 Don't be so naive. At the very least the judge was just another Obamanoid cut from the same ideological cloth as the Messiah himself. That is such a ridiculous conjecture that it's not even arguable.
Alaska_Darin_Is_Gay Posted December 12, 2009 Author Posted December 12, 2009 That is such a ridiculous conjecture that it's not even arguable. You don't think Judge Nina Gershon willfully ignored the constitutional authority granted under Article I and the limitations imposed under Article III in order to reach her opinion?
The Big Cat Posted December 12, 2009 Posted December 12, 2009 You don't think Judge Nina Gershon willfully ignored the constitutional authority granted under Article I and the limitations imposed under Article III in order to reach her opinion? Is anyone else archiving this ire for the next Republican go-round?
Alaska_Darin_Is_Gay Posted December 12, 2009 Author Posted December 12, 2009 Is anyone else archiving this ire for the next Republican go-round? Meaning?
The Big Cat Posted December 12, 2009 Posted December 12, 2009 Meaning? Meaning I hope you maintain this sort of scrutiny, party be-damned. It would be an invaluable service to your country.
Alaska_Darin_Is_Gay Posted December 12, 2009 Author Posted December 12, 2009 Meaning I hope you maintain this sort of scrutiny, party be-damned. It would be an invaluable service to your country. I will, thank you.
DC Tom Posted December 13, 2009 Posted December 13, 2009 You don't think Judge Nina Gershon willfully ignored the constitutional authority granted under Article I and the limitations imposed under Article III in order to reach her opinion? No. Prove she did.
/dev/null Posted December 13, 2009 Posted December 13, 2009 You don't think Judge Nina Gershon The judges name has diverted any serious interest I have in this thread. As Nina Gershon is just one letter difference from: Gina Gershon Here's another And another NSFW!!! You've been warned She looks a tit nipply NSFW!!!
LeviF Posted December 13, 2009 Posted December 13, 2009 The judges name has diverted any serious interest I have in this thread. As Nina Gershon is just one letter difference from:Gina Gershon Here's another And another NSFW!!! You've been warned She looks a tit nipply NSFW!!! Go back to Steely's most recent skankfest
bartshan-83 Posted December 13, 2009 Posted December 13, 2009 No. Prove she did. Slow down. Let's start with him explaining "the constitutional authority granted under Article I and the limitations imposed under Article III." Sorry if I'm a bit skeptical of his constitutional knowledge after his invocation of the Equal Protection Clause to argue against gay marriage.
DC Tom Posted December 13, 2009 Posted December 13, 2009 Slow down. Let's start with him explaining "the constitutional authority granted under Article I and the limitations imposed under Article III." I was pretty sure "prove she did" would lead to that. I was looking forward to it; considering that Article I imposes the limitations on Congress that the court was granted constitutional authority to judge under Article III. Sorry if I'm a bit skeptical of his constitutional knowledge after his invocation of the Equal Protection Clause to argue against gay marriage. Boy's got a mind like a blotter: remembers everything he reads, but gets it all backwards.
Booster4324 Posted December 13, 2009 Posted December 13, 2009 I was pretty sure "prove she did" would lead to that. I was looking forward to it; considering that Article I imposes the limitations on Congress that the court was granted constitutional authority to judge under Article III. Boy's got a mind like a blotter: remembers everything he reads, but gets it all backwards. :wallbash:
Recommended Posts