The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Giulliani's Judicial Intentions

Breyer, Ginsburg, Stephens, and Souter - are liberal
Thomas, Scalia, Alito - are conservative
Kennedy is a swing guy

so all in all, the court is neutral

the picture is just fine

except if u want to impose YOUR will on the american people

The picture isn't fine at all. You listed seven justices who have agendas that for them override the Constitution, Chance. Some of them make it obvious, some don't, but of those seven, it's hard to say any of them really believe in liberty, and only believe in the Constitution insofar as it says what they want it to say.

Giuliani has the right idea -- appoint judges committed to what the document actually says, and nothing else. But given his record, do we trust him on that?
 
^If the Constitution is so clear, unambiguous and up to date, I wonder why we need Justices at all?
 
^If the Constitution is so clear, unambiguous and up to date, I wonder why we need Justices at all?

because if it were as up to date as all that only male white land owners would be allowed to vote

So things DO need to change ;)
 
source.....

http://www.peaceworkmagazine.org/pwork/0410/041005.htm
[FONT=Palatino,Book Antiqua]American Voting Rights Timeline[/FONT]
[FONT=Palatino,Book Antiqua][/FONT]
1776 White men with property can vote. Free black men can vote in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut.


1789 Establishment of the American democracy. White
men with property can vote. Poor people cannot vote. Women, Native Americans, and enslaved African-Americans cannot vote.


1790 Between 1770 and 1790, each state handles its own naturalization laws. In 1790 the US passes its first law that grants citizenship to white men and some women. The right to vote is only for whites who have lived in the country for two years. In 1798 the law is changed so that white immigrants must live in the US for 14 years before they can become citizens. This changed to 5 years in 1902.


1820 The property laws are taken off the books and whites can vote even if they do not own property. But they must pay a poll tax or be able to read and, in some places, they must pass religious tests to vote.
1840 Poll taxes, literacy taxes, and religion tests are taken off the books. Only white men can vote.


1848 The Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo ends the Mexican-American War. The treaty guarantees citizenship to Mexicans living in the newly acquired territories of Arizona, California, New Mexico, Texas, and Nevada. Voting rights are denied -- Mexican-Americans are not allowed to vote despite having US citizenship. Property laws, language and literacy requirements keep people from voting. "Night Riders" use intimidation and violence.


1860 Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts allow free black men to vote.


1866 The Civil War ends in 1865. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 grants citizenship to native-born Americans but excludes Native Americans.


1870 The 15th Amendment establishes the right of African-American men to vote. In the South especially, poll taxes, reading requirements, physical violence, property destruction, hiding the polls, and economic pressures keep most African-Americans from voting.


1882 The Chinese Exclusion Act bars people of Chinese ancestry from becoming citizens. They cannot vote.


1887 The Dawes Act gives citizenship only to Native Americans who give up their tribal affiliations.


1890 The Indian Naturalization Act grants citizenship to Native Americans in an application process similar to immigrant naturalization.


1901 Congress grants citizenship to Native Americans living in the Indian Territory (Oklahoma).


1920 White and African-American women gain the right to vote. (Prior to 1920, some parts of the country let some women vote. For what or for whom they could vote depended on where they were. Some could vote only in school elections.)


1921 The Sons of America organize to fight for equality and the rights of Mexican-American citizens, including the right to vote. It will be 1975 before the right to vote is available to all Mexican-Americans.


1922 In the case of Takao v. United States the US Supreme Court upholds the 1790 Naturalization Act that barred Asian-Americans from becoming citizens. This enforces the policy of no voting rights for Asian immigrants.


1923 The court ruling in the case Bhagat Sing Thind v. The US rules that Asian Indians are eligible for citizenship. Technically it means that they can vote because they are now citizens. However, almost all immigrants who are people of color continue to be denied the right to vote.


1924 The service of Native Americans during World War I helps bring about the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act. The Act grants Native Americans citizenship, but many western states refuse to allow them to vote.


1943 Chinese Exclusion Act is repealed, making immigrants of Chinese ancestry eligible for citizenship.


1946 Filipinos are now allowed to become citizens.


1952 The McCarran-Walter Act repeals the racial restrictions of the 1790 Naturalization Law. First-generation Japanese can now become citizens.


1965 In direct response to the Civil Rights movement, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is enacted. It bans literacy tests and provides federal enforcement of black voter registration and voting rights.


1970 The 1970 Voting Rights Act bans literacy tests in 20 states including New York, Illinois, California, and Texas.


1971 The 26th Amendment gives full voting rights to 18-year-olds. This is a response to demonstrations demanding the vote for men under the age of 21 who were being drafted and sent to Vietnam.


1975 The Voting Rights Act is amended to include language assistance to minority voters. Language requirements have been used routinely to keep the vote from US-born citizens who speak other languages. It is now that the Voting Rights Act has some real impact and enforcement in the Southwest.


1990 The Americans with Disabilities Act requires access to the polls and to the ballot.
 
which part of this timeline would you like us to be restored to?
 
I was talking about the Constitution that we have.

then you forgot what you and guilliani said....

let me quote from the article

A strict constructionist judge tries to determine the original meaning of the Constitution based on nothing more than the words provided in the document itself. Judges of this philosophy often attempt to decipher the founding fathers’ original intent.

and then you....


Giuliani has the right idea -- appoint judges committed to what the document actually says, and nothing else.

original intent has a specific meaning, dont you think?

13th, 14th and 15th amendments could be viewed as outside the founding fathers original intent, because well...

we wouldnt have needed an amendment if they had intended anyone but white male landowners to vote

and this is just one sticky wicket that we can get in with this nonsense

the constitution wasnt meant to be an unchanging straight jacket

they foresaw that the nation would change with time and they built remedies into the document to allow for that growth

these uber conservative justices want to cherry pick so that they can promote a social agenda

that is the kind of activism that they pretend to fight against

it is intelectually dishonest and it is lingo speak
 
then you forgot what you and guilliani said....

let me quote from the article


original intent has a specific meaning, dont you think?

13th, 14th and 15th amendments could be viewed as outside the founding fathers original intent, because well...

we wouldnt have needed an amendment if they had intended anyone but white male landowners to vote

and this is just one sticky wicket that we can get in with this nonsense

the constitution wasnt meant to be an unchanging straight jacket

they foresaw that the nation would change with time and they built remedies into the document to allow for that growth

these uber conservative justices want to cherry pick so that they can promote a social agenda

that is the kind of activism that they pretend to fight against

it is intelectually dishonest and it is lingo speak

I got what Giuliani said exactly right -- go back and read it. You're adding to his words what an ignorant and sloppy writer said.

"Original intent" means what the people meant when they wrote something.

Plus, reading what it says doesn't make someone "uber conservative". You're doing here exactly what Chance1 says you do!

The only nonsense is the mind games you're throwing in here to confuse the issue -- and if you'd read my prior posts, you would know that you're engaged in false accusations.

Instead of spinning smoke, try addressing the issues -- you know, be a constructionist; deal with what the words really say.
 
I got what Giuliani said exactly right -- go back and read it. You're adding to his words what an ignorant and sloppy writer said.

"Original intent" means what the people meant when they wrote something.

Plus, reading what it says doesn't make someone "uber conservative". You're doing here exactly what Chance1 says you do!

The only nonsense is the mind games you're throwing in here to confuse the issue -- and if you'd read my prior posts, you would know that you're engaged in false accusations.

Instead of spinning smoke, try addressing the issues -- you know, be a constructionist; deal with what the words really say.

nopers buddy boi

all i did was list the reasons for my comments

if you want to make it personal and throw insults then go right on

it doesnt make your logic seem any more logical

"Original intent" means what the people meant when they wrote something.

ummm.... yah?

and as my source indicated, only white landed wealthy men were franchised into the government by that original intent.... it was the documents modification that caused it to be inclusive


Plus, reading what it says doesn't make someone "uber conservative". You're doing here exactly what Chance1 says you do!

whats that? define alito scalia and thomas as uber conservative? that is a personal attack on you somehow? how exactly is that? as i said if you would like to go back and reread my post... these justices are far from being truthfull to the original document... they are merely choosing parts of it to bolster a very ugly social agenda that you and I will be the victims of. so think about what you are supporting.


you have to slam me and a press writer to make yourself make sense....

not an impressive method of debate [-X
 
^

Again, you're ignoring

1. What Giuliani himself said.
2. My previous posts.
and
3. common sense reading of the English language.

The reasons for your comments? No, to use the sort of analysis I see from you and Alfie and others, what you did was lie.

You lied about what Giuliani said.
You lied about what I said.


Then you did exactly what Chance says you do -- change the topic back to what you want to debate, or rather, to attack, instead of what people are talking about.
 
^

Again, you're ignoring

1. What Giuliani himself said.
2. My previous posts.
and
3. common sense reading of the English language.

The reasons for your comments? No, to use the sort of analysis I see from you and Alfie and others, what you did was lie.

You lied about what Giuliani said.
You lied about what I said.


Then you did exactly what Chance says you do -- change the topic back to what you want to debate, or rather, to attack, instead of what people are talking about.

actually kulindahr i quoted you exactly

since this tread was posted and was originated by me i have an idea as to what its intended topic is

you are long on acusations and short on proof.

you are the one being dishonest and you are the one twisting things for your own agenda

but the words are all there for everyone to read

go back and give it a shot

examine these judges voting records and tell me that he and YOU arent being misleading

i have laid out exactly how i feel that this has happened

tell me you disagree

but DONT call me a liar

shady shady shady
 
actually kulindahr i quoted you exactly

since this tread was posted and was originated by me i have an idea as to what its intended topic is

you are long on acusations and short on proof.

you are the one being dishonest and you are the one twisting things for your own agenda

but the words are all there for everyone to read

go back and give it a shot

examine these judges voting records and tell me that he and YOU arent being misleading

i have laid out exactly how i feel that this has happened

tell me you disagree

but DONT call me a liar

shady shady shady

I'm supposed to look up the voting records of judges that haven't been selected by a president who hasn't been elected?
I'll have to get my crystal ball.

I've read everything in this thread, and looked back at half of it.
You want to know something?
You lied, just as I said.
You lied by putting words in Giuliani's mouth.
You lied by twisting my words into something they didn't say.
In fact, you effectively lied by making "original intent" into a way of distorting the Constitution.

And that's in the words there, for everyone to read.
 
you have let your emotions get the better of your ability to reason

those four judges are seated and guilliani has said that he plans on finding people just like them if he is elected. and i quote....

“I would appoint judges like Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Alito … Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas,” Giuliani said

you have resorted to excessive personal attacks to try to prove a point that doesnt exist

good luck with that
 
you have let your emotions get the better of your ability to reason

those four judges are seated and guilliani has said that he plans on finding people just like them if he is elected. and i quote....



you have resorted to excessive personal attacks to try to prove a point that doesnt exist

good luck with that

So you quote a statement about judges he used as examples -- which just proves you haven't been reading my posts.
That doesn't negate the lies you've thrown in along the way.

I haven't made any personal attacks -- not one. I have, however, stated the fact that you lied. I'd say you just are a really bad reader, with regard to the article, but you said you're very familiar with it, and you did post it' that means what you did by putting words in Giluliani's mouth wasn't from sloppiness, but was a lie.
And your putting meaning into my words, that wasn't there, remains a method of lying.
Those are facts.

PLEASE start reading people's posts before you respond. It anyone's emotions are a problem here, it's yours -- your bias here is leading you, as is often the case, to impute to anyone you disagree with other things you don't agree with. See, I never once approved of those judges, and whether I do or not is irrelevant, because I've been talking about strict constructionist judges, ones who really are. If you want to respond to my posts the way you have been, you should start out by saying, "I'd rather say this than discuss your points".
 
dude i honestly think youre either ON major drugs or you NEED major medication
 
Back
Top