Alaska_Darin_Is_Gay Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 Isn't Obama sneaky, trying to pass this off over the weekend. Had enough America? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1260578816...=googlenews_wsj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 Isn't Obama sneaky, trying to pass this off over the weekend. Had enough America? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1260578816...=googlenews_wsj Yeah, that Obama's really sneaky, having absolutely no involvement with a judge's enforcement of the Constitution. That clever bastard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 Yeah, that Obama's really sneaky, having absolutely no involvement with a judge's enforcement of the Constitution. That clever bastard. Oh the levers his tentacles pull... inscrutable! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 From a legal standpoint it may have been the right decision, what I am interested in seeing is if the Senate will continue the funding, my guess is no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EasternOHBillsFan Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 Isn't Obama sneaky, trying to pass this off over the weekend. Had enough America? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1260578816...=googlenews_wsj Nope, I haven't! Four more years of keeping conservative Republicans out of the Oval Office is worth the price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 Nope, I haven't! Four more years of keeping conservative Republicans out of the Oval Office is worth the price. You might actually be a bigger idiot than Donald. You two should just get a room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 Nope, I haven't! Four more years of keeping conservative Republicans out of the Oval Office is worth the price. So you feel that ACORN should continue to receive taxpayer funds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska_Darin_Is_Gay Posted December 12, 2009 Author Share Posted December 12, 2009 Yeah, that Obama's really sneaky, having absolutely no involvement with a judge's enforcement of the Constitution. That clever bastard. Don't be so naive. At the very least the judge was just another Obamanoid cut from the same ideological cloth as the Messiah himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 Don't be so naive. At the very least the judge was just another Obamanoid cut from the same ideological cloth as the Messiah himself. That is such a ridiculous conjecture that it's not even arguable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska_Darin_Is_Gay Posted December 12, 2009 Author Share Posted December 12, 2009 That is such a ridiculous conjecture that it's not even arguable. You don't think Judge Nina Gershon willfully ignored the constitutional authority granted under Article I and the limitations imposed under Article III in order to reach her opinion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 You don't think Judge Nina Gershon willfully ignored the constitutional authority granted under Article I and the limitations imposed under Article III in order to reach her opinion? Is anyone else archiving this ire for the next Republican go-round? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska_Darin_Is_Gay Posted December 12, 2009 Author Share Posted December 12, 2009 Is anyone else archiving this ire for the next Republican go-round? Meaning? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 Meaning? Meaning I hope you maintain this sort of scrutiny, party be-damned. It would be an invaluable service to your country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska_Darin_Is_Gay Posted December 12, 2009 Author Share Posted December 12, 2009 Meaning I hope you maintain this sort of scrutiny, party be-damned. It would be an invaluable service to your country. I will, thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 You don't think Judge Nina Gershon willfully ignored the constitutional authority granted under Article I and the limitations imposed under Article III in order to reach her opinion? No. Prove she did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 You don't think Judge Nina Gershon The judges name has diverted any serious interest I have in this thread. As Nina Gershon is just one letter difference from: Gina Gershon Here's another And another NSFW!!! You've been warned She looks a tit nipply NSFW!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 The judges name has diverted any serious interest I have in this thread. As Nina Gershon is just one letter difference from:Gina Gershon Here's another And another NSFW!!! You've been warned She looks a tit nipply NSFW!!! Go back to Steely's most recent skankfest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bartshan-83 Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 No. Prove she did. Slow down. Let's start with him explaining "the constitutional authority granted under Article I and the limitations imposed under Article III." Sorry if I'm a bit skeptical of his constitutional knowledge after his invocation of the Equal Protection Clause to argue against gay marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 Slow down. Let's start with him explaining "the constitutional authority granted under Article I and the limitations imposed under Article III." I was pretty sure "prove she did" would lead to that. I was looking forward to it; considering that Article I imposes the limitations on Congress that the court was granted constitutional authority to judge under Article III. Sorry if I'm a bit skeptical of his constitutional knowledge after his invocation of the Equal Protection Clause to argue against gay marriage. Boy's got a mind like a blotter: remembers everything he reads, but gets it all backwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 I was pretty sure "prove she did" would lead to that. I was looking forward to it; considering that Article I imposes the limitations on Congress that the court was granted constitutional authority to judge under Article III. Boy's got a mind like a blotter: remembers everything he reads, but gets it all backwards. :wallbash: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts