Billy, no one here has ever seen you post anything other then just your opinion.

It really is hilarious you keep pointing the finger at everyone else for doing just that.

Where are your facts?

Oh, wait, I forgot. You are a flaming troll, so you probably don't have one.

Back, back, back to ignore land for you....

ROTFLMAOL!!! I don't know about anyone else here, but I got a good giggle from what I just saw in Billy's post profile...

billybobama vbmenu_register("postmenu_119407", true);
Village Idiot

Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 608



And he fulfills his 'duty' so well...

Well, sure, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. And then there's one African-American: Clarence Thomas.

One man replaced one woman on the Supreme Court. President Bush didn't nominate another woman to replace the retired Sandra Day O'Connor. Instead he chose Alito.

The senior President Bush nominated Thomas to replace Thurgood Marshall. Would it be the reason for that is because Bush felt that an African-American was needed on the bench. Marshall never was a fan of the death penalty. He could not understand the reasoning for it. Yet he was a brilliant SC justice.

As I said earlier, it is doubtful we will see any new Supreme Court justices while the current president is in office. There can be a swaying of (parties) when a democrat becomes president in 2009. I can't see a Republican in the Oval Office then. The Democrats are sure to win.

I like your quote...I just wonder when they're going to make a ruling on Bush's illegal war...

As to the dilemna of the split votes on issues, I'd say it is partisan interpretation of the constitution. I mean, we have two party systems which can go to the extreme in their philosophies. I am not bothered by the split. I think we just need more liberal leaning judges, is all.

It is tiring educating youg dummy's in this forum. Clarence Thomas is a Republican and possibly a Fascist. I think Bryer is the other Democrat. All you people come in here a woop and holler and you do not have a clue. This makes it very difficult for people with a real brain who take the time to study the real facts. Another one of your false remarks. George Bush nomoinated Harriet Myers, a woman, to the Supreme Court, but the hard line Fascist Republicans would not have it. That is when George Bush folded and went with Alito. George Bush has folded many times under Fascist Pressure.

It's not illegal in any way. Just a pointless and needless war

The proper term is Unconstitutional War.

Something that is being brought up here needs to be explained. There is a portion of the Constitution called article six "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all treaties made or which shall be made under the authority of the United States shall be supreme law of the land; ad the judges in every state shall be bound thereby any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding."

This is why the war in iraq is illegal and unconstitutional. The UN charter is a treaty which was ratified and as such under article six is supreme law of the land. Reality is however the courts will never take a constitutional challenge to the war in Iraq. Neo-Cons screamed activism when the courts ruled in the past that treaties must be followed under article six. I hate to tell people the simple truth its all there right in front of your face if you would bother to read for a change.