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.

Texas Republican Judge Switches Party, Denouncing GOP as Party of Bigots and Hate-Mongers

Benvolio said:
No, that is not true. I studied Constitutional Law in Law School and have litigated Constitutional cases. I am sure the liberals here would support Roe v Wade, but nothing in the Constitution can be twisted to prohibit the States from making abortion illegal. But you think women should have that right, so, presto, it must be in the Constitutional. Liberals hate Citizens United and believe that businesses should not have the right to support candidates or issues, even though the Constitution is clear.
Click to expand...

If it can be clearly argued to be a right, it is in the Constitution.
 
Rolyo85 said:
How is the Constitution clear on corporations having the right to free speech and supporting politicians? Please cite the particular parts of it that support that. Having studied it, I'm sure you'll have no trouble doing it.
Click to expand...

Slugs have free speech, is his position. Also cockroaches, fountain pens, and mouse droppings.
 
Rolyo85 said:
How is the Constitution clear on corporations having the right to free speech and supporting politicians? Please cite the particular parts of it that support that. Having studied it, I'm sure you'll have no trouble doing it.
Click to expand...

"Congress shall make no law....abridging freedom of speech or of the press..."
 
Benvolio said:
Nonsense.............
Click to expand...


Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.



Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
 
Kulindahr said:
Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.



Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Click to expand...

It does not follow that those other rights are IN the Constitution. They are not. Remember, that the Constitution was created by the states which already had bodies of laws and state constitutions, including rights, not to be disparaged by the Federal Constitution. Not every wished-for "right" which you may dream up willy nilly is IN the Constitution. And is it not really a right until it is a legal right.
 
Benvolio said:
It does not follow that those other rights are IN the Constitution. They are not. Remember, that the Constitution was created by the states which already had bodies of laws and state constitutions, including rights, not to be disparaged by the Federal Constitution. Not every wished-for "right" which you may dream up willy nilly is IN the Constitution. And is it not really a right until it is a legal right.
Click to expand...

Or until a court decides it's a right -- especially the Supreme Court.
 
Disparage -vb (Old French). Lack of equality

Literally, to set two parties unequally, especially a morganatic marriage where rights are not transferrable, and thus bring dishonor to the one who must endure association with one's inferior.
 
Kulindahr said:
No one said anything about creating rights. Rights can't be created, anyway.
Click to expand...

Just above you claimed that anything that can be argued is IN the Constitution. Rights can be created by Congress or the State legislators, and alas, the US Supreme Court frequently imposes rights out of thin air. The "right" to abortion, for instance.
 
CTF said:

Judicial nominees have a history of switching parties throughout Texas in nearly all of its 254 Counties.

One doesn't have to be a wild eyed liberal, or a knuckle dragging conservative to serve on any of the Judicial Courts throughout the Great State of Texas.

BUT!

If you want to run for public office anywhere in Texas that's above a "city council level" you have to pick a D or an R to run.

When I first heard this story I thought much like you did, 'he saw the writing on the wall, and if he wants to get re-elected in that county he has to change a letter.'

I would give you examples, but in my hiatus over these past 5 months, I can already see that nothing has changed regarding your perspective, and I'd rather cast my pearls on real swine. :badgrin:

Suffice it to say, I admire this Judge because he was bold enough to publicly share why he was dropping the R for a D; ("The Republican Party Left me...I didn't leave them.") and...this is just me going out on a limb: the national GOP seems to have latched their wagon onto the Canadian IMMIGRANT Ted Cruz, aka the Senator from Texas to be their new "leader."

And I honestly don't know a single "Mexican" who would ever vote for a "Cuban."

Not that they're racists or anything, it's just that the Cubans don't traditionally "migrate" to Texas from Cuba, and that Cuba is "Communists."

And like all Ronald Reagan Republicans, they don't support "immigrants" or "communists."

So you might be on to something. :rolleyes:

Congrats Benvolio! This is the first post that I've publicly made since May 19th, 2013.

You're going to need to start bringing your A game to these forums.

I'm not a moderator/member here anymore; just a member now.

As a moderator I always considered you to be a troll, and my "perspective" hasn't changed regarding you.

And for FULL DISCLOSURE, no one here has the right as a member to "pile on."

And in my personal experience with you, I don't expect any acknowledgement from you regarding this post.

I am testing, however how much of this post may or my not be "redacted."
Click to expand...

WOW! It's so good to see you back. Welcome home!
 
Benvolio said:
Liberals/democrats do not have the high ground on following the Constitution and rule of law. You forget that Gore v Bush came about because the all Democrat FL Supreme Court attempted to change the election law in mid election to allow the Democrat dominated boards to search for and count dimples as votes. Remember board members searching with magnifying glasses?
Citizens United simply enforced the Constitution. "Congress shall pass no law..abridging the freedom of speech or the press".
Click to expand...

Oh give us a break. Conservatives in this country disregard the Constitutional process anytime it doesn't fit their political ideology. They call any Supreme Court or court ruling in general that goes against some right-wing social engineering agenda like gay marriage bans "activist judging" when it knocks down their unconstitutional ballot laws, and they failed to come out en masse denouncing the government shutdown in the attempt to change a law that they didn't have sufficient votes or judicial support for changing or challenging the constitutionality of.

No, your party doesn't stand for the Constitution anytime other than when it suits their political agenda.
 
Your tit for tat really does not work. Nothing in the Constitution give Democrats a right to fraudulent voting or prohibits voter IDs. The Constitution requires revenue bills to originate in the House, charging the House with limiting taxing and spending.
 
Benvolio said:
Your tit for tat really does not work. Nothing in the Constitution give Democrats a right to fraudulent voting or prohibits voter IDs. The Constitution requires revenue bills to originate in the House, charging the House with limiting taxing and spending.
Click to expand...

What the Constitution does justify is opposing taxes or prejudicial qualification requirements that try to thin out who is eligible to vote. And usually along racial and socioeconomic lines to improve the viability of one party. That's what your "voter ID cards" are all about. If you believe mass fraud elects Democrats, prove it.
 
Benvolio said:
Just above you claimed that anything that can be argued is IN the Constitution. Rights can be created by Congress or the State legislators, and alas, the US Supreme Court frequently imposes rights out of thin air. The "right" to abortion, for instance.
Click to expand...

Rights exist by virtue of self-ownership. They come from the phenomenon of self-awareness. The very foundation of this country is that rights cannot be created; they have been granted by our Creator, and the only thing that humans can do is either protect them or afflict others for attempting to exercise them.

Generally, anyone who claims that rights have to be created falls into the group that wants to afflict others for exercising rights.

BTW, what courts do is decide where the boundaries are when rights bump into each other. So the real question in Roe v. Wade is not whether a right was created -- it wasn't -- but whether they drew the boundary correctly. What actually occurred is that they ignored one right and passed the buck, which is a big fail... although OTOH they didn't then have a firm scientific foundation for making a good decision in the first place.
 
xbuzzerx said:
Oh give us a break. Conservatives in this country disregard the Constitutional process anytime it doesn't fit their political ideology. They call any Supreme Court or court ruling in general that goes against some right-wing social engineering agenda like gay marriage bans "activist judging" when it knocks down their unconstitutional ballot laws, and they failed to come out en masse denouncing the government shutdown in the attempt to change a law that they didn't have sufficient votes or judicial support for changing or challenging the constitutionality of.

No, your party doesn't stand for the Constitution anytime other than when it suits their political agenda.
Click to expand...

They stand for Social Darwinism, and interpret the Constitution by it.

That's as opposed to the general liberal Social Nannyism, with which they do the same thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top