DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Gunny, stop being such a pussy.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Newt brought up impeachment of judges during last night's debate. It's really the only way to stop the abuse of judges who ignore the Constitution and try to make law. I've been thinking along those lines myself for several months now. Its long overdue. Congress has to have more balls and do it.
I think it is time to impeach most everyone.
No one should be re-elected that voted for holding americans as enemy combatants including Obama.
Last edited:
SmarterthanYou
rebel
impeachment of judges wouldn't be necessary if the courts weren't removing our rights all the time, especially knowing about and using jury nullification.
You should leave this stuff in the war zone, man. There's a whole thread for it.
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
She's a woman you idiot. And you have serious anger issues.
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
You know, I noticed when your buddies come over from other boards, this whole place is a war zone.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
There's no rule against it, and seriously, he's being a real pussy.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
That's the point, they are. The only way to stop it is how the Constitution calls for. Newt's the only candidate with enough balls to say it.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
don't you think that educating the american people on their rights of jury nullification would be better? or would you prefer to impeach judges you don't care for in order to stack the courts like FDR wanted to do?
I never realized that issuing a decision that Newt Gingrich didn't like is grounds for impeachment.
Moreover, given that Newt Gingrich apparently disagrees with the Court's decision in Marbury v. Madison, he would apparently be in favor of impeaching 4 of the six justices on the first Marshall Court, including John Marshall, who is arguably the single most important Supreme Court justice in US history.
Moreover, given that Newt Gingrich apparently disagrees with the Court's decision in Marbury v. Madison, he would apparently be in favor of impeaching 4 of the six justices on the first Marshall Court, including John Marshall, who is arguably the single most important Supreme Court justice in US history.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Interesting that you and shitpile developed the same straw man. It's not my opinion, or Newt's, that is grounds for impeachment, but making decisions inconsistent with the Constitution, or outright lying, as Sotamayor did as evidenced by one of her first SCOTUS decisions against gun rights, when a few weeks prior she stated under oath in Senate hearings how she would rule on such a case.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
not sure how you garnered a strawman out of my statement, but whatever. My main point is that it's never a good idea to make sudden sweeping changes to government entities, even impeaching justices who blatantly rule against the constitution. Were that the case, Scalia would be off the bench as well. It's much better to leave power in the hands of the people, thus my preference for the use of jury nullification.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
The straw man was 'judges that I don't like" or as in the case of shitpile, 'judges that Next doesn't like'.
Impeachment is by the House, representatives of the People. Then the case goes to trial in the Senate. The process should be used often, IMO. It's not used enough because politicians are content to look the other way for fear of being subject to investigation themselves. We need to have politicians with balls.
Gunny
New member
Ah. I see pussy with legs showed up with his ballsy neg-rep. Big whoop, punk. You and that fag you got your lips wrapped around got a day coming to you .... don't forget. In the meantime, if you can't act like a fucking man, DO try and not put your prepubescent female skills on display, huh?
You're GOING to meet someone in real life one day you can't fucking handle, princess. Some people ain't as dumb as you think.
christiefan915
Catalyst
Nope, never.
Consider it a love pat for shooting off your foul mouth at my friend.
I didn't have a point. A "point" suggests I already have an opinion that I'm sharing. I had a question. A lot of people here have criticized Obama for a lot of reasons, but an unconstitutional administration isn't one of them.
Read conservative Judge Laurence H. Silberman's opinion. In a nutshell "[he]wrote that nothing in the Constitution's commerce clause or previous Supreme Court rulings bars Congress from regulating economic activity that hasn't happened yet. The uninsured might not be participating in the market for medical care today, Silberman conceded, but they almost certainly will at some point." If it's good enough for a conservative judge, it's good enough for me.
Obama was legally and constitutionally elected with close to 53% of the vote. Obama won a majority of the pledged delegates, besides the superdelegates. Hillary was in trouble with the superdelegates months before the convention. Read an article or two, it'll improve your knowledge enormously.
So why is this administration unconstitutional?
You can give your opinion, or you can continue clucking and flapping around like an angry little bantam rooster. Your choice.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Damn another sofa general, did u at least use the gi bill jughead
You overpaid for your GED jughead