Bono vs. Atlasia 2.0

[KEmperor]

There are two solid economic conservatives on this supreme court.  I don't know how the hell that ever happened, but if this passes I may be brought back into the action of fantasy politics again.  I was debating whether to run for a second Senate term; if the supreme court agrees with Bono then the Senate and I will be forced to take action.  I'll move to increase the size of the supreme court.  I'll join with other economic progressives to fillibuster every bill until it is passed.  I'll bring this movement down.  I'll bring the government to a standstill if I have to.

Your perception of your own importance is facinating.

[jokerman]

There are two solid economic conservatives on this supreme court.  I don't know how the hell that ever happened, but if this passes I may be brought back into the action of fantasy politics again.  I was debating whether to run for a second Senate term; if the supreme court agrees with Bono then the Senate and I will be forced to take action.  I'll move to increase the size of the supreme court.  I'll join with other economic progressives to fillibuster every bill until it is passed.  I'll bring this movement down.  I'll bring the government to a standstill if I have to.

Your perception of your own importance is facinating.

I am not a megalomaniac.  I simply believe heavily in my cause.

[Emsworth]

There are two solid economic conservatives on this supreme court.  I don't know how the hell that ever happened, but if this passes I may be brought back into the action of fantasy politics again.  I was debating whether to run for a second Senate term; if the supreme court agrees with Bono then the Senate and I will be forced to take action.  I'll move to increase the size of the supreme court.  I'll join with other economic progressives to fillibuster every bill until it is passed.  I'll bring this movement down.  I'll bring the government to a standstill if I have to.

Whatever happened to judicial independence? Shouldn't the Justices rule on the merits of the case, instead of succumbing to political pressure from either side?

[Joe Republic]

Well I for one don't really consider any of the current Supreme Court Justices to be "solid economic conservatives" (I don't even know which ones he was referring to).  Furthermore, I think the current Justices are possibly the best ones to currently hold their positions, and I trust them all not to base their rulings on silly partisan politics. 

[JohnFKennedy]

Well I for one don't really consider any of the current Supreme Court Justices to be "solid economic conservatives" (I don't even know which ones he was referring to).  Furthermore, I think the current Justices are possibly the best ones to currently hold their positions, and I trust them all not to base their rulings on silly partisan politics. 

Well if the election comes down to the Courts, you know whose a gonna win! (kidding)

[jokerman]

Well I for one don't really consider any of the current Supreme Court Justices to be "solid economic conservatives" (I don't even know which ones he was referring to).  Furthermore, I think the current Justices are possibly the best ones to currently hold their positions, and I trust them all not to base their rulings on silly partisan politics. 

KEmperor and JFK?  Ernest even leans slightly leans conservative, although I'm sure he will rule against Bono.

[JohnFKennedy]

Well I for one don't really consider any of the current Supreme Court Justices to be "solid economic conservatives" (I don't even know which ones he was referring to).  Furthermore, I think the current Justices are possibly the best ones to currently hold their positions, and I trust them all not to base their rulings on silly partisan politics. 

KEmperor and JFK?  Ernest even leans slightly leans conservative, although I'm sure he will rule against Bono.

You really think that influences us in any way? Just because I may believe in a certain policy, doesn't make it constitutional and as my job is to decide on the constitutionality of something, not on whether I like it or not, my own view of a particular policy is irrelevant.

[KEmperor]

Well I for one don't really consider any of the current Supreme Court Justices to be "solid economic conservatives" (I don't even know which ones he was referring to).  Furthermore, I think the current Justices are possibly the best ones to currently hold their positions, and I trust them all not to base their rulings on silly partisan politics. 

KEmperor and JFK?  Ernest even leans slightly leans conservative, although I'm sure he will rule against Bono.

You really think that influences us in any way? Just because I may believe in a certain policy, doesn't make it constitutional and as my job is to decide on the constitutionality of something, not on whether I like it or not, my own view of a particular policy is irrelevant.

Indeed.  Witness my ruling in the gay marriage dispute.

[jokerman]

Well I for one don't really consider any of the current Supreme Court Justices to be "solid economic conservatives" (I don't even know which ones he was referring to).  Furthermore, I think the current Justices are possibly the best ones to currently hold their positions, and I trust them all not to base their rulings on silly partisan politics. 

KEmperor and JFK?  Ernest even leans slightly leans conservative, although I'm sure he will rule against Bono.

You really think that influences us in any way? Just because I may believe in a certain policy, doesn't make it constitutional and as my job is to decide on the constitutionality of something, not on whether I like it or not, my own view of a particular policy is irrelevant.

What about the ruling on Supersoulty's unwed mother protection act?

[Sam Spade]

I have confidence in the court to make a reasonable and just ruling, even though they are a bunch of "Looneys". 

[KEmperor]

Well I for one don't really consider any of the current Supreme Court Justices to be "solid economic conservatives" (I don't even know which ones he was referring to).  Furthermore, I think the current Justices are possibly the best ones to currently hold their positions, and I trust them all not to base their rulings on silly partisan politics. 

KEmperor and JFK?  Ernest even leans slightly leans conservative, although I'm sure he will rule against Bono.

You really think that influences us in any way? Just because I may believe in a certain policy, doesn't make it constitutional and as my job is to decide on the constitutionality of something, not on whether I like it or not, my own view of a particular policy is irrelevant.

What about the ruling on Supersoulty's unwed mother protection act?

That ruling was clearly in line with the constitution.  I wonder if you have read it.

[KEmperor]

Ok, so:

Title 16 is Conservation laws.
Title 29 is the Labor Dept and Labor laws.
Title 42 Chapters 8, 8A, and 45 are Low Income Housing and Slum Clearance.  Chapter 34 is Economic Assistance Programs for the poor.  Chapter 119 is Homeless Assistance.

[Peter]

Ok, so:

Title 16 is Conservation laws.
Title 29 is the Labor Dept and Labor laws.
Title 42 Chapters 8, 8A, and 45 are Low Income Housing and Slum Clearance.  Chapter 34 is Economic Assistance Programs for the poor.  Chapter 119 is Homeless Assistance.

The real question is, are you going to make Bono justify why every subsection in each of  those Titles is unconstitutional? That would make for a *long* suit.

[Gabu]

Ok, so:

Title 16 is Conservation laws.
Title 29 is the Labor Dept and Labor laws.
Title 42 Chapters 8, 8A, and 45 are Low Income Housing and Slum Clearance.  Chapter 34 is Economic Assistance Programs for the poor.  Chapter 119 is Homeless Assistance.

If by some chance those actually do turn out to be un-Constitutional, I'm going to file a Constitutional amendment, as those really should be, in my view.

[A18]

Can I get a link to the constitution?

[Joe Republic]

Here ya go.

[Bono]

Ok, so:

Title 16 is Conservation laws.
Title 29 is the Labor Dept and Labor laws.
Title 42 Chapters 8, 8A, and 45 are Low Income Housing and Slum Clearance.  Chapter 34 is Economic Assistance Programs for the poor.  Chapter 119 is Homeless Assistance.

If by some chance those actually do turn out to be un-Constitutional, I'm going to file a Constitutional amendment, as those really should be, in my view.

If I drop the challange of the ones from title 42, will you drop that?

[jokerman]

Well I for one don't really consider any of the current Supreme Court Justices to be "solid economic conservatives" (I don't even know which ones he was referring to).  Furthermore, I think the current Justices are possibly the best ones to currently hold their positions, and I trust them all not to base their rulings on silly partisan politics. 

KEmperor and JFK?  Ernest even leans slightly leans conservative, although I'm sure he will rule against Bono.

You really think that influences us in any way? Just because I may believe in a certain policy, doesn't make it constitutional and as my job is to decide on the constitutionality of something, not on whether I like it or not, my own view of a particular policy is irrelevant.

What about the ruling on Supersoulty's unwed mother protection act?

That ruling was clearly in line with the constitution.  I wonder if you have read it.

I have read it.  I think if you voted it down out of the reasons you stated then by definition medicare, medicaid, and social security should really all be voted down as well.

[Colin]

Well I for one don't really consider any of the current Supreme Court Justices to be "solid economic conservatives" (I don't even know which ones he was referring to).  Furthermore, I think the current Justices are possibly the best ones to currently hold their positions, and I trust them all not to base their rulings on silly partisan politics. 

KEmperor and JFK?  Ernest even leans slightly leans conservative, although I'm sure he will rule against Bono.

You really think that influences us in any way? Just because I may believe in a certain policy, doesn't make it constitutional and as my job is to decide on the constitutionality of something, not on whether I like it or not, my own view of a particular policy is irrelevant.

What about the ruling on Supersoulty's unwed mother protection act?

That ruling was clearly in line with the constitution.  I wonder if you have read it.

I have read it.  I think if you voted it down out of the reasons you stated then by definition medicare, medicaid, and social security should really all be voted down as well.

Well they can't be voted down unless somebody introduces a bill to the Senate stating that Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are now null and void. If somebody wants to take it up with the courts that's a different matter. But even if Federal Assistance Programs like those were found to be unconstitutional their are still regional programs in existance that would probably take over for them.

[JohnFKennedy]

Well I for one don't really consider any of the current Supreme Court Justices to be "solid economic conservatives" (I don't even know which ones he was referring to).  Furthermore, I think the current Justices are possibly the best ones to currently hold their positions, and I trust them all not to base their rulings on silly partisan politics. 

KEmperor and JFK?  Ernest even leans slightly leans conservative, although I'm sure he will rule against Bono.

You really think that influences us in any way? Just because I may believe in a certain policy, doesn't make it constitutional and as my job is to decide on the constitutionality of something, not on whether I like it or not, my own view of a particular policy is irrelevant.

What about the ruling on Supersoulty's unwed mother protection act?

That ruling was clearly in line with the constitution.  I wonder if you have read it.

I have read it.  I think if you voted it down out of the reasons you stated then by definition medicare, medicaid, and social security should really all be voted down as well.

That is up to the Senate, they have the legislative right "To provide for systems of Insurance and Annuity for Unemployment, Disability, and Retirement." as Article I Section Five Clause 17 of the Constitution states. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are all clearly within the boundaries of the Senate's legislative power meaning it can abolish them if it wishes, but as far as I can see we cannot strike down such laws as the seem to be perfectly constitutional from my perspective.

[Bono]

Well I for one don't really consider any of the current Supreme Court Justices to be "solid economic conservatives" (I don't even know which ones he was referring to).  Furthermore, I think the current Justices are possibly the best ones to currently hold their positions, and I trust them all not to base their rulings on silly partisan politics. 

KEmperor and JFK?  Ernest even leans slightly leans conservative, although I'm sure he will rule against Bono.

You really think that influences us in any way? Just because I may believe in a certain policy, doesn't make it constitutional and as my job is to decide on the constitutionality of something, not on whether I like it or not, my own view of a particular policy is irrelevant.

What about the ruling on Supersoulty's unwed mother protection act?

That ruling was clearly in line with the constitution.  I wonder if you have read it.

I have read it.  I think if you voted it down out of the reasons you stated then by definition medicare, medicaid, and social security should really all be voted down as well.

That is up to the Senate, they have the legislative right "To provide for systems of Insurance and Annuity for Unemployment, Disability, and Retirement." as Article I Section Five Clause 17 of the Constitution states. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are all clearly within the boundaries of the Senate's legislative power meaning it can abolish them if it wishes, but as far as I can see we cannot strike down such laws as the seem to be perfectly constitutional from my perspective.

I have my doubts that Medicaid falls unto that, but you're absolutely right about SS and medicare.

[KEmperor]

Well I for one don't really consider any of the current Supreme Court Justices to be "solid economic conservatives" (I don't even know which ones he was referring to).  Furthermore, I think the current Justices are possibly the best ones to currently hold their positions, and I trust them all not to base their rulings on silly partisan politics. 

KEmperor and JFK?  Ernest even leans slightly leans conservative, although I'm sure he will rule against Bono.

You really think that influences us in any way? Just because I may believe in a certain policy, doesn't make it constitutional and as my job is to decide on the constitutionality of something, not on whether I like it or not, my own view of a particular policy is irrelevant.

What about the ruling on Supersoulty's unwed mother protection act?

That ruling was clearly in line with the constitution.  I wonder if you have read it.

I have read it.  I think if you voted it down out of the reasons you stated then by definition medicare, medicaid, and social security should really all be voted down as well.

So you DIDNT read the decision.  Thanks for clearing that up.  I quote from the decision that I wrote:

"Clause 17 says “to provide for systems of Insurance and Annuity for Unemployment, Disability, and Retirement.” We find that this clause is clearly intended to apply to Unemployment benefits, Disability benefits, and retirement programs such as Social Security. We do not view pregnancy and childbirth as a disability."

[Bono]

Well I for one don't really consider any of the current Supreme Court Justices to be "solid economic conservatives" (I don't even know which ones he was referring to).  Furthermore, I think the current Justices are possibly the best ones to currently hold their positions, and I trust them all not to base their rulings on silly partisan politics. 

KEmperor and JFK?  Ernest even leans slightly leans conservative, although I'm sure he will rule against Bono.

You really think that influences us in any way? Just because I may believe in a certain policy, doesn't make it constitutional and as my job is to decide on the constitutionality of something, not on whether I like it or not, my own view of a particular policy is irrelevant.

What about the ruling on Supersoulty's unwed mother protection act?

That ruling was clearly in line with the constitution.  I wonder if you have read it.

I have read it.  I think if you voted it down out of the reasons you stated then by definition medicare, medicaid, and social security should really all be voted down as well.

So you DIDNT read the decision.  Thanks for clearing that up.  I quote from the decision that I wrote:

"Clause 17 says “to provide for systems of Insurance and Annuity for Unemployment, Disability, and Retirement.” We find that this clause is clearly intended to apply to Unemployment benefits, Disability benefits, and retirement programs such as Social Security. We do not view pregnancy and childbirth as a disability."

That's the same kind of demagoguery they were doing at the time.

[Bono]

bump
when can we have this

[KEmperor]

bump
when can we have this

Later this week, once the election stuff dies down a little.