On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 08:22:09 -0400, "Lawrance A. Schneider"
wrote:

By far and away the most egregious was the decision to appoint President
George Bush. The Constitution clearly makes elections a state issue.
The Supreme Court ignored the Constitution and repeatedly interfered in
the election process. Clearly showing their right wing bias and
willingness to ignore both "Stare decisis" and the Constitution.

The second most extreme example is the "Citizens United" decision. As
the standard joke goes: I'll believe a corporation is a person when I
see Texas execute one. Again, the ignoreing both "stare decisis" and
the Constitution.

The first decision gave us an incompetent who started one war and failed
to finish it; though the military knew where to find the rest of the
Taliban and Mr. Bin Laden, he let the VP talk him out of finishing the
job. He then proceeded to start a totally useless conflict costing more
than a trillion (not paid for) dollars and incurring two trillion
dollars in VA benefits.

The second gave us the Tea Baggers. They are paid for by the Koch
brothers and have destroyed civil discourse between persons of different
views.


Larry

---
You claim to have been lurking here for years and yet you top post?

Methinks some gmail noob craving attention is in our midst.
---



In article ,
Jim Thompson
wrote:

Serious Question for Leftists...

There are literally thousands of judicial decisions out there, by
left-leaning judges, who decided cases based on "warm-and-fuzzy"
rather than the law.

I'd like citations of right-leaning judges twisting the interpretation
of the law.

Really!

No fuzzy-mouthed statements of your own opinion, quote me real
judicial decisions.

Thanks!

...Jim Thompson
--
JF