Welcome to ECCIE, become a part of the fastest growing adult community. Take a minute & sign up!

Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!

Go Premium

Go Back   ECCIE Worldwide > General Interest > The Sandbox - National
test
The Sandbox - National The Sandbox is a collection of off-topic discussions. Humorous threads, Sports talk, and a wide variety of other topics can be found here.

Most Favorited Images
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
Most Liked Images
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
Top Reviewers
cockalatte 646
MoneyManMatt 490
Still Looking 399
samcruz 399
Jon Bon 396
Harley Diablo 377
honest_abe 362
DFW_Ladies_Man 313
Chung Tran 288
lupegarland 287
nicemusic 285
You&Me 281
Starscream66 278
George Spelvin 265
sharkman29 255
Top Posters
DallasRain70793
biomed163220
Yssup Rider60919
gman4453294
LexusLover51038
offshoredrilling48646
WTF48267
pyramider46370
bambino42564
CryptKicker37215
The_Waco_Kid36978
Mokoa36496
Chung Tran36100
Still Looking35944
Mojojo33117

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-31-2012, 01:11 PM   #16
Jackie S
Valued Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 31, 2010
Location: Houston
Posts: 15,054
Encounters: 15
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ekim008 View Post
If the court strikes down the bill or mandate,they will change the ability of congress to pass laws for some time to come.
No, it will only hinder the Congress in it's ability to pass laws that are not Constitutional.
Jackie S is offline   Quote
Old 03-31-2012, 01:15 PM   #17
Chica Chaser
Premium Access
 
Chica Chaser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 18, 2009
Location: Mesaba
Posts: 31,149
Encounters: 7
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whirlaway View Post
Kagan is dumb as rocks and here is why.........
Lets not forget the perceived conflict of interest Ms Kagan has with this matter. She previously served as Solicitor General under Obama during the time of crafting and eventual passage of ACA.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...f_.single.html
Quote:
Can Justice Kagan review the ACA without regard for the personal and professional past and the future of President Obama as well as her prior work in the administration? Can she look at the ambiguous and open-ended Commerce Clause precedents of the court and reach a legal answer with no awareness of the political implications for the president who so recently employed and appointed her? If the answer is yes, she is more robot than judge. If the answer is no, she should recuse herself. And the answer, ultimately, is what Americans will think, and a reasonable American would believe she has a stake in this litigation.

1) She served as the solicitor general of the United States during the time that the ACA was furiously debated in Congress, discussed in town halls across the country, and enacted;
2) The ACA is the most important, controversial, and partisan piece of legislation put forward by the Obama administration while Kagan worked as the president’s top lawyer to the Supreme Court. If he didn’t consult with her about it, he should have;
3) She was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Obama shortly after the ACA was passed, and the president is closely and personally identified with the law;
4) She has to review the law just a few months before President Obama runs for re-election;
5) His re-election might well be affected by how the Supreme Court rules; and
6) We know she celebrated the passage of the law.

We also know that Kagan wrote an e-mail to Laurence Tribe, a famous Harvard constitutional law professor who was also working for the administration at the time the law passed, in which she said, “I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing.” The email's subject line was "fingers and toes crossed today!"
Chica Chaser is offline   Quote
Old 03-31-2012, 02:11 PM   #18
CJ7
Valued Poster
 
CJ7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 9, 2010
Location: Here
Posts: 14,191
Default

Duuuuuurrrrrrr



amazing how people connected to a party work within that party isnt it?
CJ7 is offline   Quote
Old 03-31-2012, 02:53 PM   #19
i'va biggen
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Jan 20, 2011
Location: kansas
Posts: 28,773
Encounters: 17
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackie S View Post
No, it will only hinder the Congress in it's ability to pass laws that are not Constitutional.

you all are hoping this is the only result.the court so far has elected a president changed the law so foreign countrys can contribute vast amounts of cash to elections and if they rule this law is unconstitutional they may so rule in the future,so instead of congress governing the supreme court will govern.
i'va biggen is offline   Quote
Old 03-31-2012, 03:08 PM   #20
timpage
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Apr 7, 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,249
Default

Yeah, what a dummy. Graduated Summa Cum Laude from Princeton undergraduate. Harvard Law School. Harvard Law Review. Graduated magna cum laude Harvard Law School. (that means she did good Whirlyturd). Law clerk with the United States Circuit Ct. of Appeals, law clerk at the United States Supreme Court. Worked at Williams & Connolly in Washington D.C., one of the most prestigious law firms in the world.

Left to teach law at the University of Chicago Law School, also one of the most prestigious legal institutions in the United States. Worked as assistant White House counsel, nominated for DC Circuit Ct. of Appeals but the repukes wouldn't give her a vote so she went to teach at Harvard Law School. Went on to become Dean of the Harvard Law School.

A "dummy"? No, that would be you Whirlyturd.
timpage is offline   Quote
Old 03-31-2012, 03:35 PM   #21
Chica Chaser
Premium Access
 
Chica Chaser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 18, 2009
Location: Mesaba
Posts: 31,149
Encounters: 7
Default

Nice resume she has indeed. Just because she's apparently intelligent doesn't mean she is totally above-board with integrity and ethics in her day job.

Its a really good thing she is smart
Chica Chaser is offline   Quote
Old 03-31-2012, 05:33 PM   #22
joe bloe
Valued Poster
 
joe bloe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 10, 2010
Location: Houston
Posts: 5,740
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chica Chaser View Post
Nice resume she has indeed. Just because she's apparently intelligent doesn't mean she is totally above-board with integrity and ethics in her day job.

Its a really good thing she is smart
Nobody will ever accuse her of getting by on hers looks! I hear she's a dike.
joe bloe is offline   Quote
Old 03-31-2012, 05:51 PM   #23
I B Hankering
Valued Poster
 
I B Hankering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 3, 2010
Location: South of Chicago
Posts: 31,214
Encounters: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by joe bloe View Post
Nobody will ever accuse her of getting by on hers looks! I hear she's a dike.
Wonder if this forum's "Little Dutch Boy" -- Waverunner -- would be willing to TOFTT and stick his finger in the dyke to save the U.S.!?!
I B Hankering is offline   Quote
Old 03-31-2012, 06:34 PM   #24
IIFFOFRDB
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Jun 19, 2011
Location: Dixie Land
Posts: 22,098
Default

Does the goverment have a leak site too? Obamas justice is STUPID. Thanks RUSH.
IIFFOFRDB is offline   Quote
Old 03-31-2012, 06:37 PM   #25
IIFFOFRDB
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Jun 19, 2011
Location: Dixie Land
Posts: 22,098
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering View Post
Wonder if this forum's "Little Dutch Boy" -- Waverunner -- would be willing to TOFTT and stick his finger in the dyke to save the U.S.!?!
I'm sure he's fingering his own ass. LOL
IIFFOFRDB is offline   Quote
Old 03-31-2012, 08:18 PM   #26
Whirlaway
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Jan 3, 2010
Location: Here.
Posts: 13,781
Encounters: 28
Default

Maybe Kegan wasn't the biggest dummy at this week's SCOTUS conclave ............maybe it was Breyer (from powerlineblog).

JUSTICE BREYER FLUNKS CON LAW

Reading the transcript and listening to the audio of day 2 of the Obamacare argument, I was struck by the sheer intellectual laziness and complacency of Justice Breyer. To liken him to a rodeo clown would be to credit him with too much energy. Referring to the key New Deal Commerce Clause case of Wickard v. Filburn, Breyer asked, for example: “Didn’t they make that man growing his own wheat go into the market and buy other wheat for his — for his cows?”

Well, actually, no, Justice Breyer, they didn’t. “They” — Congress in an amendment to the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 — limited the amount of wheat farmer Filburn could grow on his farm under a quota set for him by the geniuses in Washington (or penalized him for exceeding the quota). “They” didn’t make him go into the market and buy wheat for his cows. That’s the point — the point Randy Barnett has argued for the past few years.

The distinction between the case vaguely recalled by Justice Breyer and the one decided by the Supreme Court in the Wickard case might be the difference between a pass or a fail on a fairly graded Con law exam in law school. It goes to the heart of the Obamacare case. Justice Breyer has apparently been pursuing other intersts over the past few months.

As Jeffrey Anderson and Conn Carroll have observed, this wasn’t necessarily Justice Breyer’s only laugh-out-loud moment during day 2 of the oral argument. And if Justice Breyer were not a party-line liberal, you would have heard about it.
Whirlaway is offline   Quote
Reply



AMPReviews.net
Find Ladies
Hot Women

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright © 2009 - 2016, ECCIE Worldwide, All Rights Reserved