From: "John D.Wentzky" 

"No One"  wrote in message
news:87odmk1zf3.fsf{at}nospam.pacbell.net...
> "John D.Wentzky"  writes:
>
>> "No One"  wrote in message
>> news:87k5x9iame.fsf{at}nospam.pacbell.net...
>> > "John D.Wentzky"
 writes:
>> >
>> >> "Dionisio" 
wrote in message
>> >> news:4601f10f$0$16666$4c368faf{at}roadrunner.com...
>> >> > John D.Wentzky wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>>The rules stated in the Constitution say that
the courts do have
>> >> >>>the
>> >> >>>responsibility to decide whether laws are
unconstitutional.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Which would give the USSC authority to strike
down roevwade.
>> >> >
>> >> > Well, of course it's got the authority. It's just
never seen a good
>> >> > reason
>> >> > to do so.
>> >>
>> >> Bullshit. You mean the USSC justices don't know the Constitution?
>> >> How about that separation of powers clause that the USSC ignored in
>> >> 1973
>> >> because of their own crimes when they tried to cover
their own asses?
>> >> Two crimes in this case.
>> >> 1. Illegal abortion
>> >> 2. Treason against the Constitution of the United States
of America.
>> >
>> > Nonsense
>>
>> Your opinion of the Constitutional requirements. LOL!
>>
>> > - the Supreme Court declared an anti-abortion law illegal in
>> > Roe versus Wade, but did not perform an abortion (which would be
>> > illegal for the Supreme Court to do as the court would have to
>> > practice medicine without a license) and it in no sense committed
>> > "treason" (unless perhaps you mean installing King
George Bus to rule
>> > over us in 2000 :-)).
>>
>> That is how it is suppoed to be to you?
>> Weird.
>> Are you trying to tell me that the AMA has an exclusive right to all
>> abortion records?
>> You are the fool if you think that.
>>
>> > Talk about delusions on Wentzky's part!
>
> Wentzky, you are a complete and utter idiot.  Read what I actually
> posted 50 times in the perhaps futile hope that it might sink in.

I read it once and knew you were still too ignorant to know the law and use
it correctly.

--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag