Constitution Is Endangered If Kagan OK'd...

[Bo D]

So, you guys have NO problem that a SCOTUS should be able to "Make and Create" laws?

Has Kagan ever actually said that?

Not that I am aware of

So your answer is "NO"

All I can do is take these bits of information that we are getting from these hearings and make conclusions....

You didn't get that information from the hearings. You got it from that lying Phyllis Schlafly hit piece.

[Locutus]

Henry is quoting Phyllis Schlafly? Holy shit. I must now reconsider my opinion of Henry's powers of discernment.

Tell me, Hank, how do you lend any credibility to a women who made a CAREER out of demonizing women who have careers?

I thought it was well established that Schlafly is a loon, but I'm not surprised to see HH using a piece written by her.  Don't forget that the spawn of her polluted womb gave rise to this nexus of faux intellectualism. 

http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page

[LOsborne]

A transcript of what Obama ACTUALLY SAID!

Congratulations, Olias. You have just proved that Henry doesn't even have enough integrity to fact-check his own sources.

... and he is also a deceptive little drone. Anybody catch this quote?

she has stated, this about Barak, that  "He is the judge or justice

She was speaking of Aharon Barak, a justice on the Israeli Supreme Court. Henry hopes you won't look it up, and will think she means the President.

[Sandy Eggo]

Congratulations, Olias. You have just proved that Henry doesn't even have enough integrity to fact-check his own sources.

... and he is also a deceptive little drone. Anybody catch this quote?

She was speaking of Aharon Barak, a justice on the Israeli Supreme Court. Henry hopes you won't look it up, and will think she means the President.

[Henry Hawk]

Congratulations, Olias. You have just proved that Henry doesn't even have enough integrity to fact-check his own sources.

... and he is also a deceptive little drone. Anybody catch this quote?

She was speaking of Aharon Barak, a justice on the Israeli Supreme Court. Henry hopes you won't look it up, and will think she means the President.

Lolly, knock it off, you are starting to piss me off.........I said from the very beginning that she was talking about Aharon Barak...go back and look....

I tell you what you guys are about the biggest babies.......you take EVERYTHING I say, and turn it into something other than the point I was making....

talk about the inability to do research...........you guys are the most two-faced, tunnel vision, left winged losers I have ever faced....

you act like this is some national forum.....we have about 10 of us.....I think what it comes down to is, that you are seeing first hand how the left is failing and you can't stomach it.....so you guy attack those who point out the obvious to you.....

pathetic, really!!

[The Troll]

    I just sit'n back and watch'n Henry get his ass torn off and handed to him. 

[LOsborne]

...talk about the inability to do research...........you guys are the most two-faced, tunnel vision, left winged losers I have ever faced....

Non sequitur. What does an ability to do research have to do with being two-faced, tunnel vision, left winged losers?

Or was that just a gratuitous insult to obscure the fact that you didn't bother to check out the truth of Schlafly's little comedy routine, and just passed it on mindlessly as fact?

[Henry Hawk]

Non sequitur. What does an ability to do research have to do with being two-faced, tunnel vision, left winged losers?

Or was that just a gratuitous insult to obscure the fact that you didn't bother to check out the truth of Schlafly's little comedy routine, and just passed it on mindlessly as fact?

yeah go with that Lolly........everything I stated was truthful

[Sandy Eggo]

Of course not because your ego is too big to even consider the possibility that you are wrong even while everyone around you (with the exception of 'me'...think that through) is telling you that you are and why.  I'm thinking that if I was surrounded by people, many of whom were obviously better educated and better read than I, who disagreed with my position, maybe, just maybe, I may want to humble myself and allow for the possibility that it isn't everyone else but me whose thinking is off.  Just sayin'.

You're pretty amazing yourself! Very perceptive.

[Bo D]

yeah go with that Lolly........everything I stated was truthful

Wait a minute .... does that statement mean that you think you can post a hit-piece by Phyllis Schlafly that is full of lies and misinformation, but you're off the hook because you didn't say it?

Sad, Hank!

[Henry Hawk]

Wait a minute .... does that statement mean that you think you can post a hit-piece by Phyllis Schlafly that is full of lies and misinformation, but you're off the hook because you didn't say it?

Sad, Hank!

Based on the piece I posted at the beginning of this thread.........show me the "lies' that she stated....and don't put words in mouth that I did not say.....and I will say another thing.....just because you don't agree with someone's opinon pieces doesn't mean I won't keep on posting them if I find they have a point to get across....and if you don't like it; get over it.....this administration is full of lies and misinformation, but you are okeedoke with that.

[Bo D]

Based on the piece I posted at the beginning of this thread.........show me the "lies' that she stated

I already showed you her lies. Last post on page one. Everybody else seems to have read it.

just because you don't agree with someone's opinon pieces doesn't mean I won't keep on posting them if I find they have a point to get across

Oh I get it. The end justifies the means. Even it the "means" involves LYING to get your "point" across.

....and if you don't like it; get over it.....this administration is full of lies and misinformation, but you are okeedoke with that.

Did I say I was "okeedoke" with that? Hey, bubba! don't "put words in my mouth" either!

[Henry Hawk]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

okay BUBBA! 

Watch this....this is the actual radio segment where Obama himself is speaking about... the was NO LIE at all....he said exactly what she said he said....with the very intent that he believes that it is a tragedy that the courts cannot redistribute wealth....for civil rights or whatever....redistributing wealth is what he wants...and would love for the courts to have that power...

listen carefully, that is what he is saying....I say you have a problem thinking that "media matters" is the gospel and assume they always have thier facts right...

[Bo D]

Too bad you can't read, Hank, and you have to rely on poorly edited BoobTube with typos in them to get your information. But if you noticed, the written transcript was word for word what I posted on the first page.

Schlafly Lie: "Barack Obama revealed his goal for the Supreme Court when he complained on Chicago radio station WBEZ-FM in 2001 that the Earl Warren Court wasn't "radical" enough because "it didn't break free from the essential constraints placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution" in order to allow "redistribution of wealth."

"OBAMA: Right, and it essentially has never happened. I mean, I think that, you know, if you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order in, as long as I could pay for it, I'd be OK. But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.

And, to that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted it in the same way that, generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties -- says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted."

[Henry Hawk]

Too bad you can't read, Hank, and you have to rely on poorly edited BoobTube with typos in them to get your information. But if you noticed, the written transcript was word for word what I posted on the first page.

Schlafly Lie: "Barack Obama revealed his goal for the Supreme Court when he complained on Chicago radio station WBEZ-FM in 2001 that the Earl Warren Court wasn't "radical" enough because "it didn't break free from the essential constraints placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution" in order to allow "redistribution of wealth."

"OBAMA: Right, and it essentially has never happened. I mean, I think that, you know, if you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order in, as long as I could pay for it, I'd be OK. But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.

And, to that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted it in the same way that, generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties -- says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted."

too bad you have to be so biased and read into what you want...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/02/obama-and-the-courts/

and the washington times got it wrong to, huh?