BUT ROBERTS AND HIS FOUR SHALLOW FELLOW CONSERVATIVE SUPREME COURT
ACTIVISTS HAVE NO ROOM TO CRITICIZE THE RECENT STATE OF THE UNION
MESSAGE.

NOT AFTER THEIR INTENTIONALLY MISINTERPRETED SECOND AMENDMENT DECISION
THAT EQUATES AN ARMED FORCE, A MILITIA, WITH AN INDIVIDUAL PISTOL-
OWNER.  ALMOST LAUGHABLE.

BUT DOESN'T ROBERTS HAVE A HISTORY OF SEIZURES?

AND SCURRILOUS SCALIA A HISTORY OF ROMAN CATHOLIC-RULE-WORSHIP?

AND CLARENCE 'UNCA" THOMAS A HISTORY OF WHITE-MAN WANNABEE-ISM?

EVEN SO, MANY RACIST REPUGS AND OTHER ILL-EDUCATED CONSERVATIVE DOLTS
WILL ALWAYS GIVE THESE CRAVEN SC-BASTARDS A WINK AND A NOD WHEN IT
COMES TO GUNS, GOD, AND GOOMBAH-GOVERNMENT.

WON'T YA?

-----
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/09/AR201...

On Mar 10, 7:15 am, OvarianTumor <slipuva...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Bullshit from the left.  The 2nd amendment is clear.  The right to own
and bear arms shall not be infringed upon.  Now take your gun control
laws to the US Armed Forces were thousands of felons in the Army and
Marines keep and bear arms while Obama's Fire Arms and Tobacco puppets
look the other way.

More lying and selective editing from the North Pole pussy.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed."

That tumor has spread.
You should have it lobotomized.

John

The 2nd Amendment is clear ... "A well regulated MILITIA ... the
people ... "    no mention of individuals ...  or a 'person' ... so,
sorry you sorry racists and DAFFY DUMB SHITTERS!   But we educated
individuals understand ... your ability to anal-ize is centered in
your anus.

My Fellow Googlers:

I have been following this group and, as sorry as I am ... to admit
it, Mr. or Ms. Tumor are correct in every sense.   Individual peoples
have no Constitutional right to buy or own guns under the 2nd
Amendment. You have to be pretty stupid to believe other wise.

In fact, I'm embarrassed that my Supreme Court picks are mistaken on
this.  If I was still in office, I would give them hell.

Yours Truly,

George

P.S. -- May God Bless America

news:f1c2e7b1-e49c-4b1c-b51e-c8d88b9139a1@g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...

news:f1c2e7b1-e49c-4b1c-b51e-c8d88b9139a1@g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...

English is obviously not your native language.

All Rights are individual Rights.

If they were not your right to free speech would only exist if published in the press.

Your right to a speedy trial by a jury of your peers would only apply if you belonged to a gang.

John

Critical thinking is obviously not your strong suit.

ROBERTS VIEWED AS A "CRYBABY"

No arguments here ... right, jaf?

----------------------
PostPartisan - The Washington Post

"Chief Justice Roberts is a big crybaby"

By Ruth Marcus

To listen to John Roberts, you'd think that mobs of pitchfork-waving
Democrats had accosted a handful of trembling justices and demanded
that they reverse themselves on the spot -- or else. Speaking to law
students at the University of Alabama, Roberts said anyone is free to
criticize the court. Except, apparently, not to the justices' faces.

"There is the issue of the setting, the circumstances and the
decorum," he said. "The image of having the members of one branch of
government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court,
cheering and hollering while the court -- according to the
requirements of protocol -- has to sit there expressionless, I think
is very troubling."

But why? Surely Roberts doesn't think that the justices are about to
be intimidated by some congressional applause -- or even a law
professor-turned-president criticizing their ruling. The State of the
Union address is the occasion to discuss the most important issues
facing the country. The Supreme Court ruling that President Obama said
"reversed a century of law" and threatened to "open the floodgates for
special interests...to spend without limit in our elections" certainly
fits that bill. It was appropriate for the president to use the
occasion to call on Congress to craft a legislative response to the
decision -- even in the presence of its authors.

Earlier, explaining why he is a no-show at the address, Justice
Clarence Thomas cited the controversy over Justice Samuel Alito's head-
shaking response to Obama's remarks. "One of the consequences is now
the court becomes part of the conversation, if you want to call it
that," Thomas said. Good: the court is and should be part of the
conversation.

Ronald Reagan, albeit in a less confrontational way, criticized the
court's abortion-rights rulings in several State of the Union
addresses. "To those who say this violates a woman's right to control
of her own body: Can they deny that now medical evidence confirms the
unborn child is a living human being entitled to life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness?" he said in 1988 -- with members of the court
that disagreed with him sitting right there. For good measure, Reagan
took a shot at the court's rulings on school prayer and called for a
constitutional amendment on that subject, as well as on abortion.

The State of the Union is, as Roberts sniffed, part "political pep
rally" -- with the opposing teams each participating in their rival
cheers. But it is also a ceremonial, even magisterial occasion of
state, attended by members of the diplomatic corps and the joint
chiefs of staff. It is fine for some members of the audience to cheer
and incumbent on others to keep a poker face.

In his forthcoming book, "Supreme Power: Franklin Roosevelt vs. the
Supreme Court," former Bill Clinton speechwriter Jeff Shesol describes
how Roosevelt toned down the confrontational language that appeared in
earlier drafts but still used his 1937 State of the Union address to
take the court to task for blocking New Deal legislation. "The
judicial branch also is asked by the people to do its part in making
democracy successful," Roosevelt said. "The process of our democracy
must not be imperiled by the denial of essential powers of free
government."

Roosevelt, Shesol writes, was disappointed to look up and see that
none of the justices were present. Apparently tipped off, or fearing
that they would be the target of presidential criticism, they stayed
away -- as Roberts might next year.

That would, I think, be a mistake. If conservative justices boycott a
Democratic president's State of the Union address, who, then, will be
politicizing the court?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/03/chief_justice_r...