From: "Gary Britt" 

What a dunce.  A constitution is a written contract.  A social pact of
rules agreed upon by a super majority of citizens to bind themselves and
their posterity.  Contracts aren't moral perspectives, and definitely
aren't subject to the whimsical interpretations of 5 out of 9 unelected
jurists. Because things can change over time the constitution provides for
a mechanism to change its terms.  Its called the amendment process, and the
amendment process doesn't mention anywhere in it that if 5 out of 9
justices on the supreme court decide its important to substitute their
personal evolving standards for those written in the constitution then
that's Okay Dokey.  Nor does the amendment process mention anywhere in it
that if 5 out of 9 justices want to substitute their personal evolving
policy preferences for the policy preferences of the peoples' elected
representatives that is Okay Dokey too.

What kind of person argues for monarchial rule by 5 out of 9 unelected
judges while pretending to be for liberty and counting of citizen's votes?

A lying ass of a liberal with his head so far up his colon that it seems
perfectly reasonable to argue for judicial dictatorship as a substitution
for what they can't achieve at the ballot box.

Gary

"John Cuccia"  wrote in message
news:pp4o22tsq5ndus3pa27k6qg4iduitckh6g{at}4ax.com...
> And what kind of person argues, on the one hand, that morality differs
> from century to century while also arguing, on the other,  that a
> Constitution written some two and a quarter centuries ago should not
> be subject to regular reinterpretation as a result of those
> ever-changing mores?
>
> A hypocrite, that's what kind.
>
>
> On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 12:06:57 -0500, "Gary Britt"
>  wrote:
>
> >Different time different morality.  1840 versus 1940.  Only the brain
dead,
> >biased or biased brain dead try to compare actions across centuries from
a
> >standard of morality that didn't exist until recently.
> >
> >Gary
> >
> >"Adam"  wrote in message
news:442bd534{at}w3....
> >> John Cuccia wrote:
> >> > On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 00:47:58 -0500, "Mark"

wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> You're now saying you're against our actions in WWII John?
> >> >
> >> > What in the world is your addled little brain reading
now?   I said
> >> > nothing of the sort.
> >> >
> >> > I was commenting on the existence, or lack thereof, of
the "laws and
> >> > customs of war", which are polite fictions which
rarely survive the
> >> > savage exigencies of the moment.
> >> >
> >>
> >> It should be pointed out that ethnic cleansing & even genocide were
part
> >> of the customs & within the law till 45 & then people
were prosecuted
> >> for doing it to white people rather than darker skinned people under
> >> wholly new & retroactive victor's justice.
> >>
> >> e.g. in your indian wars etc ethnic cleansing was the aim but coz they
> >> weren't white it didn't matter.
> >>
> >> Adam
> >>
> >> >>  >> >> always wrong in your eyes, or what? I ask cause it
sure comes across
> >that
> >> >> way most of the time>
> >> >
> >> > Have you stopped beating your wife yet, or what?
> >> >
> >

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5