| Scifi Hollywood Homosexuals Neo-Conservatives and Corrupt Judges [message #37581] |
Di, 17 Mai 2005 16:09 |
|
[Excerpted from the huge alt.battlestar-galactica thread:
Entertainment Business Truth -- Fairness Doctrine #4
concerning what sort of people are these
Hollywood Homosexuals Neo-Conservatives who are
determinedly selling Sodomy to your kids in the BSG series ]
"George Peatty" <pttyg47-1230 [at] copper.net> wrote in message
news:d5t2re0260a [at] drn.newsguy.com...
> In article <z9cge.62$ix3.27 [at] trndny07>, Snake says...
> >That is impossible for pluralism and tyranny are on opposite ends of the
> >political landscape. If you do not seek pluralism you do
> >indeed seek a form of tyranny - both are exclusive to one another.
> Nonsense. The tyranny of pluralism is the doctrine of political
> correctness. Give me a theocracy any day. It was Supreme Court
> Justice John Marshall who said that it was the privilege of Americans to
> prefer Christians as rulers. I heard someone online reply, to the effect,
> Christians, or anyone else. And, that is to vitiate Marshall's comments.
> No. Historically, it was, as de Tocqueville so eloquently described,
> a fundamental belief in Christianity underlying the principles of civil
> government that made this country unique among world governments.
> We have repudiated that belief in the name of pluralism, and we
> are the poorer for it.
John Marshall was the Crook Judge who in 1803 as Supreme Court
Chief Justice violated the Constitution in the Marbury v. Madison (1803)
decision in which he claimed that the Supreme Court had the right
to strike down the laws made by Congress.
The whole debate about whether Courts should be making law or not
emanates from this criminal acts by the Marshall Supreme Court in that year.
The Congress should pass a Statute striking down the Marbury vs Madison
decision, have the President sign it and then send troops into the Supreme
Court, if the Supreme Court continues to dispute the Constitution's clear
provision that Congress makes all laws.
The key problem here seems to be twofold:
1) most legislators are attorneys, and as such they consider this deviation
from the Constitution to be good for them since they have more influence
with Judges who run the Courts than other citizens, playing with the
intricacies of laws and court rules, and
2) the Courts are careful to curry favor with the Media, even to the point
of abusing the First Amendment to support muck like Pornography which
was never its intent.
This two pronged shroud is protecting this crooked ability of crooked judges
to exert supremacy over the people's laws even though the Constitution and
the Constitution's antecedent, the English Bill Of Rights (which arose out
of the blood of the English Civil War in the late1600's), sought to place
the legislature, Congress and the Parliament, above the Courts.
Politics
|
|
|
