Liberals and the "rule of law"

For liberals this is a one way street.

from JoeUser Forums
Today while watching television I saw a few liberals crying about how creating a NEW
Bill for Terry Shivo was “wrong” because it circumvented Florida’s judges.

Funny how these same liberals seem to not care one wit about California liberal judges circumventing the voters by overturning prop 187, that was voted on and passed by 65% of the people and one judge rules against it and the prop. Is dead in the water.

The people of California voted that marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman, yet another liberal activist judge overturns this one as “unconstitutional”.

There is no mention of marriage in the constitution btw.

There is no outcry by liberals when the Massachusetts Supreme Court says gay marriage is all right.

Seems liberals only care about the rule of law when it works in there favor. Period>

Again liberals do what they do best, cry, moan and try to get as much face time on TV, as possible.
politics
4,296 views 17 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm afraid that's only one side of the coin, Moderateman.

Some of the folks who have been bemoaning activist judges are now trashing this one for adhering to the law. Some of the folks who have been demanding our laws be enforced are now trying to find a way to break this one. Some of the folks who have been championing the sanctity of the marital relationship are now trying to meddle in this one. It's time for the folks who have been telling the elitist left that if they think we need more or higher taxes to just send it in, to pony up the money to care for Terry Schiavo for the duration. We've got no business interfering in this most private and personal of matters.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top

Daiwa is kind of correct, but i think he misses the point.

Those that use the courts to get what they want when the will of the people deny them that, are now decrying this very tactic.

But on a side note (and I may blog on it), is not what the courts, Michael, and democrats doing "cruel and unusual' Punishment?  After all, it is a given that she has some brain activity and starving her to death is cruel and unusual given that we can feed her.

me thinks that this is a liberal Waterloo.  And stupid.

Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: DaiwaPosted: Sunday, March 20, 2005I'm afraid that's only one side of the coin, Moderateman.Some of the folks who have been bemoaning activist judges are now trashing this one for adhering to the law. Some of the folks who have been demanding our laws be enforced are now trying to find a way to break this one. Some of the folks who have been championing the sanctity of the marital relationship are now trying to meddle in this one. It's time for the folks who have been telling the elitist left that if they think we need more or higher taxes to just send it in, to pony up the money to care for Terry Schiavo for the duration. We've got no business interfering in this most private and personal of matters.Cheers,Daiwa


the propossed bill allows terry just the same rights as any convicted murderer has, the right to a review of excisting evidence.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: Dr. GuyPosted: Sunday, March 20, 2005Daiwa is kind of correct, but i think he misses the point.Those that use the courts to get what they want when the will of the people deny them that, are not decrying this very tactic.But on a side note (and I may blog on it), is not what the courts, Michael, and democrats doing "cruel and unusual' Punishment? After all, it is a given that she has some brain activity and starving her to death is cruel and unusual given that we can feed her.me thinks that this is a liberal Waterloo. And stupid.


me too doc. I can just see the liberals here crying and whining if terry was thier sister, mother etc, how unfair it is to starve this poor woman to deaTH.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
The people of California voted that marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman, yet another liberal activist judge overturns this one as “unconstitutional”.


Wasn't the press eager to point out that the judge was actually a Catholic Republican, not a liberal? Nice try though.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Wasn't the press eager to point out that the judge was actually a Catholic Republican, not a liberal? Nice try though.


He was appointed by a Republican, it never said he was a Republican. Otherwise, you are correct.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
The people of California voted that marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman, yet another liberal activist judge overturns this one as “unconstitutional”.


Wasn't the press eager to point out that the judge was actually a Catholic Republican, not a liberal? Nice try though.


After having lived in CA for 20 years, I can say this. There are no republicans in CA. At least not to stay. Only the libs are staying behind. The smart republicans are either leaving or already left CA.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
After having lived in CA for 20 years, I can say this. There are no republicans in CA. At least not to stay. Only the libs are staying behind. The smart republicans are either leaving or already left CA.


So your govenor is not a republican? hmm, someone should tell him that.
Reply #9 from PolMach Forums Top
After having lived in CA for 20 years, I can say this. There are no republicans in CA. At least not to stay. Only the libs are staying behind. The smart republicans are either leaving or already left CA.


Ya, they are moving from CA to Nevada. I think Nevada may have to deploy the National Guard at the boarders soon.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: shadesofgreyPosted: Monday, March 21, 2005The people of California voted that marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman, yet another liberal activist judge overturns this one as “unconstitutional”. Wasn't the press eager to point out that the judge was actually a Catholic Republican, not a liberal? Nice try though.


any judge that legislates from the bench is A LIBERAL. period, no matter what party they belong to.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: drmilerPosted: Monday, March 21, 2005The people of California voted that marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman, yet another liberal activist judge overturns this one as “unconstitutional”. Wasn't the press eager to point out that the judge was actually a Catholic Republican, not a liberal? Nice try though.After having lived in CA for 20 years, I can say this. There are no republicans in CA. At least not to stay. Only the libs are staying behind. The smart republicans are either leaving or already left CA.


heyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy........................
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: shadesofgreyPosted: Monday, March 21, 2005After having lived in CA for 20 years, I can say this. There are no republicans in CA. At least not to stay. Only the libs are staying behind. The smart republicans are either leaving or already left CA.So your govenor is not a republican? hmm, someone should tell him that.


yep arnold is a republican but also very liberal/moderate in thinking and actions , after all he did marry a KENNEDY.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: Lee1776Posted: Monday, March 21, 2005After having lived in CA for 20 years, I can say this. There are no republicans in CA. At least not to stay. Only the libs are staying behind. The smart republicans are either leaving or already left CA.Ya, they are moving from CA to Nevada. I think Nevada may have to deploy the National Guard at the boarders soon.


heyyyyyyyyyyyyyy, I can sneak into nevada under the guise of spending casino money. eh eh eh eh
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
After having lived in CA for 20 years, I can say this. There are no republicans in CA. At least not to stay. Only the libs are staying behind. The smart republicans are either leaving or already left CA.


So your govenor is not a republican? hmm, someone should tell him that.


No, he's a RINO! And BTW he ain't *my* govener. I told you the smart ones *left* or are leaving. Then there are those that can't afford to leave. Sorry MM I'm trying to figure out where you fit into that CA mess.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
14 by drmiler
Monday, March 21, 2005


No, he's a RINO! And BTW he ain't *my* govener. I told you the smart ones *left* or are leaving. Then there are those that can't afford to leave. Sorry MM I'm trying to figure out where you fit into


tis easy , we love california, the weather, and yes the crazies, cali is not called the land of fruits and nuts for no reason.
Reply #16 from PolMach Forums Top
heyyyyyyyyyyyyyy, I can sneak into nevada under the guise of spending casino money. eh eh eh eh


Lets compromise. We will let you into temporarily our state so you can pay our taxes, but you first must wear a explosive collar that will blow up if you don't lose over $50 an hour.

Or we will let you move here, if you tear up your RNC card and promise not to bring anymore of your ultra liberal journalist friends to try and pass yet another legalize Marijuana bills or work at our newpapers.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: Lee1776Posted: Monday, March 21, 2005heyyyyyyyyyyyyyy, I can sneak into nevada under the guise of spending casino money. eh eh eh ehLets compromise. We will let you into temporarily our state so you can pay our taxes, but you first must wear a explosive collar that will blow up if you don't lose over $50 an hour.Or we will let you move here, if you tear up your RNC card and promise not to bring anymore of your ultra liberal journalist friends to try and pass yet another legalize Marijuana bills or work at our newpapers.


clean and sober here so pot is out for sure and 50 an hour?? geeze I just wanna rent nevada not but it> bwahahahahahah