scalia, thomas, renquist and O'Conner were against it. O'Conner is not really what I'd even call a 'conservative'. The rest of the court, all the libs, were for it. The NYT wrote an editorial in favor of it.

If you notice no one is talking about this all that much on the news or anything. The elites in Washington dont have a clue how people feel about this.

yea, I sure wouldn't hire a flag burner. must be a seriously disturbed person...

Last Edited : Sunday, 26 June 2005 - 12:13

I should have made another thread about the flag burning, but perhaps I can lay this issue to rest.

I do not advocate people burning our flag in protest but as a symbol of freedom. Extreme, I know. However, I see people wrapping themselves in our flag and waving it around who are the antithesis of what I believe our country stands for. Free speech is a precious right, one well worth fighting to keep. Enslaved peoples all over the world wish they had that freedom, wish they could say what they wish without the certain fear of retribution from their government.

I am expressing a symbolic concept, that freedom means nothing if we aren't going to allow dissent. Through our history, dissenters have had the freedom to advocate change to our government form as well as it's office holders. If we want to vote to be communist, nazi or anything in between we are free to advocate our position, just not to advocate the violent overthrow of the exisiting government. I hope we never lose the freedom to change when it becomes necessary. It sure seems necessary now, the three branches of government have all decided to do things I just can't abide. From the Congress abdicating its war powers, to the court making decisions like the above mentioned about taking, to the executive branch running roughshod over the truth to wage war for its friend's profit, we are in a sorry mess.

You conservatives may eventually find that we liberals are much more your friends than the scum you have allied yourselves with, they will take away your freedoms much more surely than any liberal ever will.
Liberal means open and progressive, conservative means reactive and regressive, in my opinion. What you signify as "Liberal" may not fit what my definition of Liberal means. To me, it is a good thing to be open-minded and compassionate to others.

Does that help clarify my position any?

SO Mog,

Why is it that it was the judges that are considered "Liberial" on the Supreme Court that voted for this decision? Looks to me like it is the Socalist side of America that is taking over.

NH - IF you edit a post after another person has made comment on it, you should note your changes.

* Give NH a Huge Hug!!

MOg, you expressed YOUR right to burn the flag. IF you don't then why do you call it YOUR right. It is the right of those that want to burn a flag to do so. There fore your right is your right.

p.s. Dont burn it in front of me or I will use my right to protest your actions.

Baffles me too why no one is really covering this. Christian Science Monitor has a readers poll, 97% think it was the wrong decision! Sounds like a sure-fire winner for a politician to jump on, but I guess not.

OF COURSE the Congress can do something about this, the Constitution may be amended! OF COURSE trying to impeach justices over this is stupid and a waste of time, they did nothing illegal. Wrong, yes, a "treason, bribery, or high crime and misdeamonor." NO.

This is all very interesting because actually I guess we all have the power of attorney and can go around a courthouse like Al Pacino yelling, "your out of order."
Yeah sure.
Anyway,
anyone who has had to defend himself even in traffic court knows just how much freedom of speech we have and to be honest although I agree that there is a need for change of some aspects of the courts like present topic for example, these people who have become judges on the norm are super intelligent.

IMO though I don't like having to depend on our ability to pick "saints among men" for a job that requires "saints among men". I haven't ever liked a system where the wrong color shirt or some other oddity might cause you to lose favor with a judge.
Also I guess there is a possibility of corruption
I know ... we can make them all take lie detector tests every year.

TR

Sage - "Just how liberal do you have to be for this to look like a GOOD decision?"

Apparently exactly as liberal as Justices John Paul Stevens, Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen G. Breyer. The only surprise to me was that Sandra Day O'Connor was on the minority side in this decision.

Sage - "I don't think this is liberal or conservative, I think it's just crazy."

I do have to agree with you on the last part there Sage.

The Mainstream Liberal Media is not covering this in any meaningful analytical way because they have been supporting this type of rule by the all powerful, benevolent elite for decades. They have a vested interest in the courts being able to make law. The loss of legislative and executive power is not likely to be reversed for some time and this is the last bastion of liberalism in our government.

They can't discredit the courts without discrediting themselves. If they admit in any small way that liberal judges are out of control, they basically agree with the arguments that conservatives have been advancing for years. They support the notion that the Democrats were WAY off base in trying to restrict conservative jurists from the bench. Judges who support the actual words of the Constitution are the only ones who can actually be counted on to protect ANY of our rights. For liberal "living constitution" judges, the Constitution means exactly what any five of them agree it means on any given day.
Cheers,
H.

PS. Congress doesn't have the power to amend the Constitution! It is a bit more complicated than that. Our best bet to get this fixed anytime soon is to support the picks President Bush has made for the Federal Courts and be sure to oppose the Liberal Democrat opposition as soon as a debate about any Supreme Court vacancy begins. If it was up to them the vote would have been 9-0 instead of 5-4 to take our property at will. Once again, Bush was right!!!

Last Edited : Sunday, 26 June 2005 - 14:49

This is a bit off the subject, but what do people think of Janice Rogers Brown as a nomination for the SCOTUS (Supreme Court)? I just collected some quotes from her and they are pretty amazing!

www.neoperspectives.com/janicerogersbrown.htm

Where government advances - and it advances relentlessly - freedom is imperiled, community impoverished, religion marginalized and civilization itself jeopardized.
- CA Justice Janice Rogers Brown


....so, she joins...The Government?

lol - hmmmm.... good point. Trojan horse type maybe?

Don't know if this is a joke or real, but certainly is funny:

www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html

You all donating?

That's awesome!!

The funniest part was when someone interviewed him today and asked why he was targeting Souter's house and not Stevens. His answer was, "Some hotels are chains!" Too funny!!! I certainly wish him well and would love to invest in the hotel chain if it goes public. There should be at least 5 of them.
Cheers,
H.

BA I have to disagree with your first post, You said that America is the greatest nation ever... If you were the greatest nation why do you fight wars that you dont need to? Did they find WMD's In Iraq??? And Vietnam...

*smacks Offspring*

*tells Sage and Offspring to take it to a new thread*

TL

I am not as 'up-to-snuff' on American Politics as (being an American) I could be, but, as an attempt to ease one's mind I would say that the 'people's forum' (so to speak) will probably prove able to defend the rights of landowners. Especially if persons (such as most of the comments on this thread were made by) take their chance to speak out. Unpopular dicisions have a way of going into the garbage in the United States, and I suggest you voice your opinions not only in this Forum, but to your Congressmen as well.

Thank-you and Good Night

Last Edited : Friday, 1 July 2005 - 13:12

Furrin' agitaters! I knew it! This Australian site is un-American! We's pullin' out of the UN! Call Homeland Insecurity! We gots us a lil' ol' commie heyah!

(Mog rants off into the hills where his Unibomber shack is situated)

Ooh goody! US out of the UN! Lets go find some WMD's AND then kill them for no reason even though we will find millions of them...

Offspring,
I have tried to read your last several times. I still don't have any idea what you are trying to say. It seems you are ranting against the US, but I am not getting much else out of it. Care to explain a bit and perhaps make a point?
Cheers,
H.

Sorry Hwatta i didnt really type it well... I mean that Mog was joking around and said that US withdraw from the UN so i said we should search America for Weapons of mass destruction, even if we dont find any (unlikely) still kill them for no reason even though there are millions, like the US did to Iraq.