Comments for Judicial Supremacy v Co-Equal Branches

5 mg cialis canada
best doses for propecia
gele viagra
generic propecia for sale
usa cialis
viagra in canada
viagra pills
cialis vs levitra
name brand cialis
canadian pharmacy viagra legal
cialis soft canada
viagra 100 mg
cialis philippines
healthcare canadian pharmacy
discount canadian cialis
online viagra gel to buy
viagra for women
how can i get some cialis
cheap viagra from uk
real viagra without prescription
viagra online 50mgs
viagra aus usa
cheap propecia 5mg
viagra through canada
viagra propranodol
buying cialis soft tabs 100 mg
generic cialis canadian
viagra for cheap
viagra online sales
viagra dose
buy real viagra online
pfizer viagra 50mg
buy propecia online
canadian healthcare viagra
best prices for propecia
buy viagra in canada no prescription
viagra no prescription
best way to use cialis
cialis discounts
discount canadian cialis
viagra in canada pfizer
healthcare of canada pharmacy
cialis daily canada
cialis testimonial
similar cialis
viagra fast delivery
cialis cost
no prescription viagra
cheapest propecia prescription
cialis once daily
viagra for sale
viagra india
purchase cialis cheap
viagra professional
canada viagra pharmacies scam
buy generic cialis
cialis woman
buy viagra germany canadian meds
where to get viagra cheap
buy cialis
healthcare canadian pharmacy
lowest price propecia
viagra label
viagra cheap
online cialis
canadian generic viagra online
viagra buy now
cialis on sale
buy cialis online canada
buy viagra china
cialis levitra sales
cialis for sale
canada viagra
cialis and diarrhea
cialis quick shipment
canada viagra generic
viagra without prescription
viagra available in india
brand cialis for sale
viagra overnite
cialis soft
cialis price 100 mg
cialis once daily
real cialis
buy levitra in europe
canadian viagra
spain female viagra
cialis professional 100 mg
natural viagra
canadian pharmacy
cialis trazodone
discount levitra pharmacy purchase
buying viagra without prescription
levitra vs viagra
bying viagra online cheap us
map of france with cialis
cheap levitra online us
brand viagra over the net
cheap viagra
buying generic cialis mexico rx
woman testimonial of cialis
us discount viagra overnight delivery
viagra tabs
indian generic levitra
viagra injectable
indian cialis
viagra 100mg england
what is better viagra or levitra
get viagra fast
which is better viagra or cialis
indian cialis canada
ordering viagra overnight delivery
buying cialis
viagra purchase
online viagra
buy cialis canada
viagra pfizer online
price check 50mg viagra
cialis for women
how to get cialis no prescription
canadian generic cialis
viagra effects on the penis
viagra
buy branded viagra
cialis online canada
cialis soft tablets
viagra online deals
viagra discount
viagra 50 mg
viagra how much
soft viagra
cialis india
viagra fast delivery
cialis strenght mg
brand viagra
viagra overnite
price cialis
cialis prices
online viagra
discount canadian cialis
cialis iop
viagra from india
online generic cialis 100 mg
cialis
viagra buy
generic cialis in india
buy cialis in canada
lowest price levitra generic online
real viagra online
viagra non prescription
pfizer viagra canada
what is cialis professional
cialis and ketoconazole
search propecia
cialis dosage
viagra label
buy cialis online without prescription
buy propecia cheap
levitra vs cialis
women viagra
buy pfizer viagra in canada
rx generic viagra
cialis kanada
cialis brand
viagra soft tabs 100 mg
viagra prescriptions
canada viagra pharmacies scam
viagra prescriptions
best price levitra
viagra in canada
brand cialis for sale
low price cialis
where to purchase viagra
how strong is 5 mg of cialis
buy real viagra online without prescription
viagra canada
real cialis
cialis and diarrhea
cialis dosage
cialis alternitives
spain female viagra
levitra tablet
professional cialis online
buy viagra online
lowest price for levitra
cialis overnight
cialis brand name
purchase cialis cheap
cost of cialis
viagra tablet weight
viagra mexico
cialis by mail
cheap propecia no prescription
levitra best price
viagra samples
cialis for women
pfizer mexico viagra
cialis soft
levitra ed
viagra 100 mg
cialis generic
herbal viagra
cialis discount prices
about cialis
cialis price in canada
soft cialis
levitra in uk
cialis daily cost
viagra or cialis
spain female viagra
low cost canadian viagra
how much does cialis cost
how to get cialis no prescription
pill decription of propecia
canada online pharmacy propecia
levitra canadian
where to buy cialis
viagra buy now
low price cialis
generic viagra in canada
purchase cialis overnight delivery
cialis for woman
low cost canadian viagra
non pescription cialis
online ordering propecia
cialis fast delivery
viagra order
buy propecia online from usa pharmacy
professional cialis online
cialis headaches
natural viagra
for sale levitra
when will viagra be generic
generic viagra propecia
cialis fast delivery usa
brand viagra professional
buy cialis next day delivery
buy viagra online canada
cialis kanada
viagra prescription
once a day viagra
discount levitra purchase
discount levitra rx
online pharmacy propecia
canadian pharmacy
where to purchase viagra
where to get viagra cheap
chip cialis
cialis profesional
viagra levitra
Comments for Judicial Supremacy v Co-Equal Branches http://www.judicialsupremacyvscoequalbranches.com A Spring Semester National Dialogue About the Seperation of Powers Tue, 09 Feb 2010 04:13:03 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1 hourly 1 Comment on First Post — Welcome to a National Dialogue on Judicial Supremacy by Centinel http://www.judicialsupremacyvscoequalbranches.com/?p=153&cpage=1#comment-17 Centinel Thu, 18 Jun 2009 01:54:49 +0000 http://www.judicialsupremacyvscoequalbranches.com/?p=153#comment-17 I am ready to continue. I have read the study material. I am ready to continue. I have read the study material.

]]> Comment on First Post — Welcome to a National Dialogue on Judicial Supremacy by Centinel http://www.judicialsupremacyvscoequalbranches.com/?p=153&cpage=1#comment-14 Centinel Tue, 09 Jun 2009 05:31:16 +0000 http://www.judicialsupremacyvscoequalbranches.com/?p=153#comment-14 Marbury v Madison shouldn't stand for the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of the Constitution. Federalist Paper # 78 points out that the judiciary depends on the aid of the executive arm for the efficacy of its judgments. In Article III, of the Constitution, the legislative branch 'may ordain and establish all other courts'. and 'with such exceptions, and under such regulations Congress shall make'. So this is the checks on judicial power. Marbury v Madison shouldn’t stand for the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of the Constitution. Federalist Paper # 78 points out that the judiciary depends on the aid of the executive arm for the efficacy of its judgments.
In Article III, of the Constitution, the legislative branch ‘may ordain and establish all other courts’. and ‘with such exceptions, and under such regulations Congress shall make’.
So this is the checks on judicial power.

]]> Comment on First Post — Welcome to a National Dialogue on Judicial Supremacy by Centinel http://www.judicialsupremacyvscoequalbranches.com/?p=153&cpage=1#comment-13 Centinel Tue, 09 Jun 2009 05:20:43 +0000 http://www.judicialsupremacyvscoequalbranches.com/?p=153#comment-13 To further the thought on my last post, regarding Study Question #2, it is clear that the founders thought the judicial branch the least of all branches. Americans thought themselves British subjects, but 'more free' than those in England. Americans were found to be somewhat disrepecter of authority by some Europeans. No wonder judges weren't held in the same regard as the other two branches. To further the thought on my last post, regarding Study Question #2, it is clear that the founders thought the judicial branch the least of all branches.

Americans thought themselves British subjects, but ‘more free’ than those in England. Americans were found to be somewhat disrepecter of authority by some Europeans. No wonder judges weren’t held in the same regard as the other two branches.

]]> Comment on First Post — Welcome to a National Dialogue on Judicial Supremacy by docjp http://www.judicialsupremacyvscoequalbranches.com/?p=153&cpage=1#comment-11 docjp Fri, 05 Jun 2009 00:21:34 +0000 http://www.judicialsupremacyvscoequalbranches.com/?p=153#comment-11 Being particularly light on legal and especially heavy regarding the Esoteric Psychology of Man, it occurs to me that it would not hurt to consider the Psychology of the nominee as part of any evaluation. Being particularly light on legal and especially heavy regarding the Esoteric Psychology of Man, it occurs to me that it would not hurt to consider the Psychology of the nominee as part of any evaluation.

]]> Comment on First Post — Welcome to a National Dialogue on Judicial Supremacy by driley@juno.com http://www.judicialsupremacyvscoequalbranches.com/?p=153&cpage=1#comment-8 driley@juno.com Wed, 03 Jun 2009 20:14:51 +0000 http://www.judicialsupremacyvscoequalbranches.com/?p=153#comment-8 The best way for one to judge whether something is truly racist or biased is to see whether changing the persons of interest around would make the statement less or more racist. For example, A white man received grant money yesterday to set up a pro-white group to have meetings at his church; OR, A black man received grant money yesterday to set up a pro-black group to have meetings at his church. One is politically correct and tolerated; the other is not - SOLELY based upon the man's race. So, to question a judge based upon their biases is most important, for we can see what happens when we allow justices to push their own personal prejudices through. Even Ginsberg had to admit during her confirmation hearing that Roe v. Wade was arguably the worst example for case law. (Which is the reason why I don't view case law as legitimate "law" to be followed; if the judiciary isn't going to interpret the law - but replace the law with their own prejudiced view of the world - then how can we respect the law at all? It's now "law du jour.") Of course, I have a problem with whatever way one wants to define "legal empathy," solely based upon the fact that the law has now been reduced to the whim of how empathetic one might be on any given topic. Sotomayer scares me almost solely based upon the fact that the most liberal man to ever live in the White House chose her. Liberals have agendas... big ones! And they're EXTREMELY adroit at accomplishing their goals by shaming the only people still capable of shame: conservatives! So, it's not what I know about Sotomayer that makes me scared, it's what I DON'T know that makes me scared!!! Barack has proven he's serious about "change" (none of it good, but it IS change), so when he has the oppportunity to appoint one of only nine people to bring legitimate balance to our legal system, it is with good reason anyone give pause. For sure, the vetting process will be as thorough for Sotomayor as it was for Barack with regard to the media, but conservatives not only have the right to question anyone that'll sit as a life-appointment to the highest court in the land... they have the DUTY of making sure that our legal and judicial systems aren't turned upside down anymore than they are from the original Fathers' intent! The best way for one to judge whether something is truly racist or biased is to see whether changing the persons of interest around would make the statement less or more racist. For example, A white man received grant money yesterday to set up a pro-white group to have meetings at his church; OR, A black man received grant money yesterday to set up a pro-black group to have meetings at his church. One is politically correct and tolerated; the other is not - SOLELY based upon the man’s race. So, to question a judge based upon their biases is most important, for we can see what happens when we allow justices to push their own personal prejudices through. Even Ginsberg had to admit during her confirmation hearing that Roe v. Wade was arguably the worst example for case law. (Which is the reason why I don’t view case law as legitimate “law” to be followed; if the judiciary isn’t going to interpret the law - but replace the law with their own prejudiced view of the world - then how can we respect the law at all? It’s now “law du jour.”) Of course, I have a problem with whatever way one wants to define “legal empathy,” solely based upon the fact that the law has now been reduced to the whim of how empathetic one might be on any given topic. Sotomayer scares me almost solely based upon the fact that the most liberal man to ever live in the White House chose her. Liberals have agendas… big ones! And they’re EXTREMELY adroit at accomplishing their goals by shaming the only people still capable of shame: conservatives! So, it’s not what I know about Sotomayer that makes me scared, it’s what I DON’T know that makes me scared!!! Barack has proven he’s serious about “change” (none of it good, but it IS change), so when he has the oppportunity to appoint one of only nine people to bring legitimate balance to our legal system, it is with good reason anyone give pause. For sure, the vetting process will be as thorough for Sotomayor as it was for Barack with regard to the media, but conservatives not only have the right to question anyone that’ll sit as a life-appointment to the highest court in the land… they have the DUTY of making sure that our legal and judicial systems aren’t turned upside down anymore than they are from the original Fathers’ intent!

]]> Comment on First Post — Welcome to a National Dialogue on Judicial Supremacy by klyneal http://www.judicialsupremacyvscoequalbranches.com/?p=153&cpage=1#comment-7 klyneal Wed, 03 Jun 2009 18:32:58 +0000 http://www.judicialsupremacyvscoequalbranches.com/?p=153#comment-7 I agree with the tenet that cases are judged by the individuals involved -- NOT groups. Sotomayer has already proven (firefighters case) that she allows her personal prejudices to decide her cases and that she gives preferences to groups... specifically Latino and persons of color. Consider this from Pat Buchanan's column: After Yale, Sotomayor joined the National Council of La Raza and the board of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund. Both promote race and ethnic preferences, affirmative action and quotas for Hispanics. But why should Puerto Ricans like Sotomayor, who were never subjected to slavery or Jim Crow -- their island was liberated from Spain in 1898 by the United States -- get racial or ethnic preferences over Polish- or Portuguese-Americans? What is the justification for this kind of discrimination? Just the fact that her rulings have been overturned so many times is enough for anyone to doubt her ability to serve on the very court that has overturned her decisions so many times. Her nomination should be denied. If all the GOPs on the judiciary committee ruled against her - she would not be nominated. But the GOPs on the committee would have to stick together as at least 1 minority party vote is required. I agree with the tenet that cases are judged by the individuals involved — NOT groups. Sotomayer has already proven (firefighters case) that she allows her personal prejudices to decide her cases and that she gives preferences to groups… specifically Latino and persons of color.
Consider this from Pat Buchanan’s column: After Yale, Sotomayor joined the National Council of La Raza and the board of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund. Both promote race and ethnic preferences, affirmative action and quotas for Hispanics.
But why should Puerto Ricans like Sotomayor, who were never subjected to slavery or Jim Crow — their island was liberated from Spain in 1898 by the United States — get racial or ethnic preferences over Polish- or Portuguese-Americans?
What is the justification for this kind of discrimination?

Just the fact that her rulings have been overturned so many times is enough for anyone to doubt her ability to serve on the very court that has overturned her decisions so many times.

Her nomination should be denied. If all the GOPs on the judiciary committee ruled against her - she would not be nominated. But the GOPs
on the committee would have to stick together as at least 1 minority party vote is required.

]]>