RETIREDFAN1

Uranus......

I'm with Apple on this one........

West Hardin vs. San Augustine Tuesday at 8:00 Woodville

Don't give them any ideas........lol

That SECOND AMENDMENT is looking better and better......

All we have to have to keep his nominee out is 40........there are over 50 republicans in the Senate......if they can't block his nominee, there's no further reason to even bother voting for republicans ever again......

Not if the Senate grows a pair.......it takes 60 votes to approve a justice.......all the republicans have to do is say no......

Congrats to Coach West on a great career and hope she has a long and enjoyable retirement.......

You're probably right...I wasn't paying attention when they were talking about the time.......

The article is showing how contradictory man's law is when it tries to call one persons murder of an unborn child a crime, while calling it justified when done by a doctor.....evidently you guys don't understand satire.....he's showing how ludicrous and absurd it is to allow doctors to murder unborn children, when someone who is not a doctor would be prosecuted and imprisoned FOR DOING THE SAME THING....the article is 100% true...the only thing absurd is the fact that the genocide is allowed to continue........

West Hardin vs. West Sabine in Kirbyville on Tuesday........7:00......

Your statement of absolute faith in the judgement of the Supreme Court.......

The U. S. Supreme Court also ruled at one time that it was perfectly legal to own slaves and to transport them to your new home in the western states if you so chose...... .[Hidden Content]

I didn't have to look them up for any reason other than to post them.....IF your biographical information is correct, I've been studying The Constitution since before you were a twinkle in your parent's eyes....:P We seem to have different interpretations of it.....yours, based on the opinions of lawyers and courts...... mine based on the Founders own words in The Federalist and the Anti-Federalist papers, which are linked below for anyone interested in learning the Founders perspective...... [Hidden Content] [Hidden Content]

It's STILL in question........I don't see any evidence backing up your claims.....you may be a burger flipper at Dairy Queen for all anyone on here knows......

You managed to LEAVE OUT the following clause: with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. here is the ENTIRE context of Article II, Section 2, unedited except for points of emphasis.....It doesn't say the same thing you edited it to say in order to back up your very wrong position.... Section 2 The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed. I don't see any express statement forbidding state courts to hear the cases you mentioned, nor do I see anything that can even imply that state courts are forbidden to hearing those cases......

[Hidden Content]

Amos 4: 6 - 13 6 “I gave you cleanness of teeth in all your cities, and lack of bread in all your places, yet you did not return to me,” declares the Lord. 7 “I also withheld the rain from you when there were yet three months to the harvest; I would send rain on one city, and send no rain on another city; one field would have rain, and the field on which it did not rain would wither; 8 so two or three cities would wander to another city to drink water, and would not be satisfied; yet you did not return to me,” declares the Lord. 9 “I struck you with blight and mildew; your many gardens and your vineyards, your fig trees and your olive trees the locust devoured; yet you did not return to me,” declares the Lord. 10 “I sent among you a pestilence after the manner of Egypt; I killed your young men with the sword, and carried away your horses, and I made the stench of your camp go up into your nostrils; yet you did not return to me,” declares the Lord. 11 “I overthrew some of you, as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah, and you were as a brand plucked out of the burning; yet you did not return to me,” declares the Lord. 12 “Therefore thus I will do to you, O Israel; because I will do this to you, prepare to meet your God, O Israel!”

"Now, with all of that said, I have to get back to reading my constitutional law textbook because, ironically enough, I have my constitutional law class in the morning." Again, obama was a constitutional law scholar and professor, too......

" So, in effect, the Constitution mandates that Congress set up some system of lower courts to hear these cases, " The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish

"Furthermore, if you could shut down all the lower courts and the Supreme Court could somehow find a way to handle all those cases, all of American justice would be in the hands of nine people as opposed to the 874 federal judicial appointees we have today. Not only does that reduce the thoroughness with which justice would be doled out, it severely curtails the ability of the courts to assess the ramifications of how the law is applied and make adjustments as necessary, and concentrates an immense amount of power - quite literally all of the power to determine what the law means - in the hands of just nine people. If, on top of that, Congress were to reduce the number of SCOTUS justices to one as you desire through attrition or some means that's actually constitutional, that power to interpret all of the American body of law would be even more focally concentrated in the hands of just one man, who would be entitled to serve until retirement, conviction for a crime or death. That, in my opinion, would be as close as you could possibly get to a having a monarch under the United States Constitution." That's one of those CHECKS and BALANCES that you should be aware of IF you really do teach Constitutional Law OR are a student of such....Congress COULD reign in a judicial system which has usurped it's Constitutionally enumerated powers by simply shutting them down.........However, I'm reminded that obama was also a "Constitutional Law" professor, and we all see clearly how he doesn't understand the first thing about that document......

"Now that we've established that Congress does not have the power to reduce the number of SCOTUS justices at will, let's discuss your plan to get rid of all of the lower federal courts." To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court; I said that congress COULD get rid of them all should they decide to exercise their power, not that they WOULD.....My statement is in complete agreement with The Constitution......

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time. It would be awful hard for those Justices to remain on the court who Congress, BY A SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE, decided to no longer pay........

He's full of hot air......he never touched on the actual QUOTES I posted from the Constitution which show much of his long winded rant to be incorrect.......I imagine you know as much about The Constitution as he does, you just choose not to be a blowhard about it.......anyone can come on and CLAIM to be attending "constitutional law classes"......I'll break his bloated arrogance down later this morning with actual QUOTES from the Constitution, not just reference to the article and section.......:)

Article 3. Section 1 The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office. In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.