Latest Coronavirus - Yikes

#113,976
#113,976
mad4vols said:
I’ve been through the journey with a couple of dear friends that are both type 1. And also have supported several people that are type 2. So insult all you want with your google doctor comments.
Click to expand...
Again. you tried to move the goalposts from what the original article stated. It just mentioned diabetes. It didn't make a distinction between Type I or Type II.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol
#113,979
#113,979
NurseGoodVol said:
Don’t you think it’s rather odd that promoting the General welfare has decimated jobs, the economy, personal interactions, mental health issues and childhood obesity?
“ secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity” in case you forgot that’s also in the constitution, it’s the next line. They took an oath to uphold that.
Click to expand...
Not supporting the general welfare may have made all of those even worse....except maybe childhood obesity.
 
#113,980
#113,980
hog88 said:
That is not SCOTUSs job.
Click to expand...
Sure it is.

About the Court - Supreme Court of the United States.
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW" - These words, written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building, express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States.
As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.
 
#113,982
#113,982
luthervol said:
Sure it is.

About the Court - Supreme Court of the United States.
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW" - These words, written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building, express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States.
As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

When the SCOTUS steps outside its lane and starts taking into account things like “public good” instead of sticking to the constitution we end up with citizens placed in internment camps.

Not to mention your blurb about equal justice has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. If anything a Supreme Court Justice considering letting the mandate stand is doing the exact opposite of protecting equal justice for all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rocky_Top_Vol13, DynaLo, FallCreekVols and 5 others
#113,983
#113,983
hog88 said:
When the SCOTUS steps outside its lane and starts taking into account things like “public good” instead of sticking to the constitution we end up with citizens placed in internment camps.

Not to mention your blurb about equal justice has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. If anything a Supreme Court Justice considering letting the mandate stand is doing the exact opposite of protecting equal justice for all.
Click to expand...

After seeing a news segment on abolishing the USC, I did a google search for articles which discuss eliminating and I was rather shocked. Even NYT OpEds back in 2014. Even to be considered a "living document", it diminishes it without going thru the prescribed process. The FF made it difficult to amend for a reason, not law based on time in history or feelings
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#113,984
#113,984
hog88 said:
When the SCOTUS steps outside its lane and starts taking into account things like “public good” instead of sticking to the constitution we end up with citizens placed in internment camps.

Not to mention your blurb about equal justice has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. If anything a Supreme Court Justice considering letting the mandate stand is doing the exact opposite of protecting equal justice for all.
Click to expand...
Equal justice for all means that at times you have to consider the conflicts and tradeoffs between the rights and freedoms of the individual and the rights and freedoms of individuals within a group (society).
 
#113,985
#113,985
luthervol said:
Equal justice for all means that at times you have to consider the conflicts and tradeoffs between the rights and freedoms of the individual and the rights and freedoms of individuals within a group (society).
Click to expand...

You have it completely bassakwards. The BORs and the SCOTUS are there to protect the individual rights against the government. That is there sole purpose in life and when they meander away from their only purpose they allow people like you the power to subvert liberty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Big Orange#1, C-south, Rocky_Top_Vol13 and 11 others
#113,986
#113,986
hog88 said:
You have it completely bassakwards. The BORs and the SCOTUS are there to protect the individual rights against the government. That is there sole purpose in life and when they meander away from their only purpose they allow people like you the power to subvert liberty.
Click to expand...
We seem to disagree on their purposes and on their necessary charge to interpret the constitution.
 
#113,992
#113,992
hog88 said:
Disagreeing with me on this is disagreeing with the the actual guys that wrote the constitution.
Click to expand...
The guys who wrote it disagreed with each other.
Lots of compromises (majority won by the way) and lots of room for interpretation.
 
#113,993
#113,993
luthervol said:
The guys who wrote it disagreed with each other.
Lots of compromises (majority won by the way) and lots of room for interpretation.
Click to expand...

No, there isn’t any room for interpretation. Yes, several FFs disagreed on even the need for a BORs to be included but in the end they did agree the individual needed protection from the majority.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DynaLo and davethevol
#113,994
#113,994
MG1968 said:
SCOTUS doesn’t interpret the Constitution. They interpret laws based on the Constitution.
Click to expand...
You're simply just wrong on that...
About the Court - Supreme Court of the United States
As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.
 
#113,995
#113,995
hog88 said:
No, there isn’t any room for interpretation. Yes, several FFs disagreed on even the need for a BORs to be included but in the end they did agree the individual needed protection from the majority.
Click to expand...
Sure there is room for interpretation......and an absolute necessity.

The meaning of "well regulated militia" is the perfect example.
 
#113,996
#113,996
luthervol said:
You're simply just wrong on that...
About the Court - Supreme Court of the United States
As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Then we can thank our lucky stars there’s a conservative majority currently seated on the bench.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FallCreekVols, davethevol and hog88
#114,000
#114,000
Orangeslice13 said:
not a big deal.
I probably overreacted to the Fauci man thing anyway. I get sick of people referencing that dipstick like he’s the only voice, when in reality nobody outside of politics listens to him.

Moving on.
Click to expand...
Agreed. The MSM has made him the only voice. Whether it’s true or not, in finally heard some of Malone’s interview with Rogan and he said the definitions of misinformation and disinformation, in regards to Covid, were (re)defined to say that anything that goes against the WHO or the respective national health authorities would be classified as one of those two and censored. So in our case we get what WHO, CDC or NIH say as gospel; that’s literally the concept of propaganda. However, when the CDC says masks for everyone over 2 and WHO says masks for anyone over 5, I wonder who’s guilty of disinformation?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top