close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Talk

Why should YOU join our Glock forum?

  • Converse with other Glock Enthusiasts
  • Learn about the latest hunting products
  • Becoming a member is FREE and EASY

If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.

Why the Congress Must Rein in the Supreme Court

Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by Ruble Noon, Jun 29, 2012.

  1. The Machinist

    The Machinist No Compromise

    6,349
    324
    Sep 20, 2009
    The Left Coast
    It's as I've always said: If we elected constitutionalists who loved liberty, rather than fight over the liberals' table scraps, we wouldn't have to live in fear of the Supreme Court.

    But no, let's keep participating in the election farce every four years. Look how much good it did us yesterday. Conservatism is dead in this country.
     


  2. JBnTX

    JBnTX Bible Thumper

    20,020
    4,169
    Aug 28, 2008
    Fort Worth Texas

    Conservatism is NOT dead in this country.

    You'd be amazed at the number of people just as frustrated as you are. A lot of people are really pissed off about what's going on in Washington DC.

    Very soon the next Ronald Reagan will come along and return us to a more conservative country.

    If Obama is defeated and Romney only serves one term, then in just four short years we could be back on the road to prosperity.

    We went through this same thing when Jimmy Carter was president and we survived.

    You just have to believe in the American people and have a little faith.
     
  3. Brucev

    Brucev

    9,189
    5
    Jul 19, 2009
    Re: reigning in the federal royality. Been saying it a long time. The house and senate need to tell the sc to go to the theological place of torment. If the sc wants to whine, let them whine. But, do it. The sc currently exercises power all out of proportion to any conceivable balance. It acts politically under the cloak of law. Let them offer all the whiny advice they want to, but then if they can't make good decisions, treat them the same way Jackson treated marshall and co. when they told Jackson to play nice with the indians.
     
  4. Bren

    Bren NRA Life Member

    42,075
    8,937
    Jan 16, 2005
    Kentucky
    I'm glad that was written by Canadians, so I can deny that anybody in America who can read is that (&^(&^ stupid.:rofl:

    Even taking the simplest view of it: "Because the supreme court didn't strike down socialist healthcare, the branch of government that wrote and passed the law needs to extert MORE control." A child could come up with better logic.

    Those people don't "love liberty" they love running their mouths.

    Congree needs to stop the Supreme Court from doing crazy stufff like ruling that Americans have an individual right to own guns, that is enforcible against state governments, huh? Yeah, they're terrible.:upeyes:
     
  5. maxsnafu

    maxsnafu

    2,942
    1
    Dec 29, 2006
    JB, the trouble is every year the percentage of people who think like us gets smaller due to immigration and liberalism buying off people. It won't be long before we're in the minority and easy pickings for the Left.
     
  6. aircarver

    aircarver Ride Continues Silver Member

    So who's gonna provide the money to run their show then ?

    .
     
  7. jeanderson

    jeanderson Toga!... Toga! Platinum Member

    5,839
    4,015
    Apr 11, 2012
    Ohio
    We need a replacement for the Republican Party. A party that is dedicated to the principles and the letter of the law set forth in the U. S. Constitution.

    The Constitutionalist Party anyone?
     
  8. aircarver

    aircarver Ride Continues Silver Member

    Third party & you get Perot elects Clinton.

    We need to jack up the Republican Party nameplate and put a tea party underneath.

    .
     
  9. Skyhook

    Skyhook

    13,068
    1
    Nov 4, 2002
    USA
    The man was 'spot-on' when he said, "In most cases since the middle of the 20th century, the high court has sided with whatever the central government wanted to do in the way of extending its power and curtailing rights which any person who can read plainly sees protected in the document they are sworn to defend."

    That tendency (fact, actually) has always caused me deep concern and resulted in a certain distrust for DC Moguls of all stripes.

    Problem is, the congress, the uber political group with arguably the greatest self-concern is to correct the supremes?!? Somehow, I cannot get that vision firmed-up.
     
  10. Gundude

    Gundude

    7,491
    507
    Mar 7, 2003
    A Republican will unseat Romney after 1 term? Not likely. When was the last time a party unseated its own President after 1 term? The only way Romney will serve one term is if a Democrat gets elected to replace him.

    If you want to get back on the road sooner rather than later, frustrated conservatives need to grow a pair and kick Romney to the curb now.

    Justice Roberts was one of the good guys and look what he did. You already know Romney is not one of the good guys. Out of raw fear you refuse to believe what he'll do, but that won't stop him from doing it.
     
  11. Gundude

    Gundude

    7,491
    507
    Mar 7, 2003
    Think about it this way:

    If Romney gets in now, and does a bunch of progressive RINO things (as is most likely) and is universally hated by 2016, by far the most likely outcome is that he gets defeated by a Democrat. That results in another 4 and potentially 8 years of progressive gain.

    So we're talking up to 12 years until your Reagan on a white horse can charge in.

    Get rid of Romney now, and in a scant 4 years real conservative candidates will be jumping over each other to get on the ticket. The populace will be so sick of Obama, and the "Romney lesson" will still be fresh enough in Republicans minds, that the landscape will be as ripe as it could ever be for a real conservative candidate.

    4 years vs. at least 8 and probably 12. Are you up for it, or is emotion (fear/hatred) the only thing you're gonna base your vote on?
     
  12. Bren

    Bren NRA Life Member

    42,075
    8,937
    Jan 16, 2005
    Kentucky
    Thing is, that next democrat would be a first termer, who needs to keep enough friends to try to get reelected. That is VERY different than a second term Obama. That is exactly why I've said that if Romney is exactly the same as Obama, in every possible way, it would still be obviously MUCH better to elect Romney.
     
  13. Gundude

    Gundude

    7,491
    507
    Mar 7, 2003
    Big deal. At the end of his first term, you'll still get stuck choosing between him and another liberal Republican because you'll be too scared of his second term. Doing the same thing over and over will never yield different results.

    The entire "anyone but Obama" philosophy rests on the core belief that Obama's second term will destroy us all. If you throw out that bit of paranoid delusion, it doesn't make any sense at all.
     
  14. Ruble Noon

    Ruble Noon "Cracker"

    11,018
    2
    Feb 18, 2009
    Their entire argument about nominating justices was

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBaWSDhCLPQ"]Shot Down In Flames by AC/DC - YouTube[/ame]