Told Ya!

[~UN_$ung~]

Site thousands? Um, OK.

But back to your point: Yes, and they were wrong. The reason abortion is such a contentious issue today is because the courts usurped State rights. Remember, abortion was already legal in 13 States prior to Roe V Wade. Many, if not most, today, though they would not support over turning Roe v Wade, still consider it bad law and the reason it's still such a contentious issue today. A clear violation of State rights and the 10th amendment. Judicial activism is alive and well and getting worse.

Anyway, this is a good discussion to have and one of the reasons GetBig is such a great board, because other than the few like pugalist666 who once again shows his profound lack of intellectual heft and substance and really adds nothing to the board but just dead weight, there are a lot of thoughtful people here from all walks of life. This board truly transcends the trivial sport that is bodybuilding and why many stay here.

That's why it's such a tragedy that this board is so poorly run and maintained. I'd love to continue this discussion but having to waiting literally ten minutes for your post to load is just ridiculous and I don't have the time and patience for it.

And to pugalist, the lot right next to me, no house or anything. Just the lot. Is on the market for $750,000. I guarantee you that my garage is worth more than any house you live in in Canada.

So keep hiding behind you mommy's skirt making faces at everyone. No here likes you or respects you. You occupy the lowest rung on the ladder of manhood. That of a coward.

yeah, thousands..........if you really took the time to research the subject.......you would see thousands of state and federal court decisions over the years on many different important issues:

from decisions that broke up corporate monopolies, to ones about the military draft, to drugs and how big pharma could market them, to issues regarding housing, who is given loans,and who you have to give loans to, and affirmative action


you would see that just as much as the legislative branch of government, the judicial branch of govenrment has shaped the cultural landscape of the last century........





oftentimes, when politicians want to push an issue that they know will be unpopular with the people, they do it through the judges they elect...........because judges cannot be voted out, so they are put there as the business-arm of hot button issues...............thi nk about it  

[che]

Who gives a fuck seriously

Keep fighting homos don't give up ,interracial marriage wasn't legal until 1967  .

[ThaRealist]

Who gives a fuck seriously

Keep fighting homos don't give up ,interracial marriage wasn't legal until 1967  .

The only thing I believe in is if two "humans" want to be married that are not related to one another why not let it be??? who gives a damn if to homos or lesbos get married if they are not related to eachother...

[pellius]

yeah, thousands..........if you really took the time to research the subject.......you would see thousands of state and federal court decisions over the years on many different important issues:

from decisions that broke up corporate monopolies, to ones about the military draft, to drugs and how big pharma could market them, to issues regarding housing, who is given loans,and who you have to give loans to, and affirmative action


you would see that just as much as the legislative branch of government, the judicial branch of govenrment has shaped the cultural landscape of the last century........





oftentimes, when politicians want to push an issue that they know will be unpopular with the people, they do it through the judges they elect...........because judges cannot be voted out, so they are put there as the business-arm of hot button issues...............thi nk about it  

And you took the time to research thousands of case histories? OK.

The question still is, not whether or not judicial activism has occurred in the past, but do you support judges unilaterally over ruling the will of people and making law?

[pellius]

Who gives a fuck seriously

Keep fighting homos don't give up ,interracial marriage wasn't legal until 1967  .

A race is a state of being. You cannot change what race or nationality you are. Homosexuality is a behavior.

Huge difference.

[pellius]

The only thing I believe in is if two "humans" want to be married that are not related to one another why not let it be??? who gives a damn if to homos or lesbos get married if they are not related to eachother...

If you support same sex marriage, on what basis do you oppose people related to each other getting married? Say a father and a son, or brother/brother? Sister/sister?

[pellius]

Hey Coach, where the fuk are you? Whenever I step in to back your position you always disappear and leave all the fighting to me. I can more than hold my own but if you start a thread challenging or promoting a thought or position see it through even when the fists start flying.

[gib]

(No homo), but I agree, I don't really care what two faggotts do to each other (so long as they don't try it on me, that's cool). If they want to get married, its fine with me. But if a faggott wants to touch me etc that's not cool. So long as they keep their hands off and don't try to fag on me, or spread HIV etc deliberately, or molest kids etc, I got no problem.

[pellius]

(No homo), but I agree, I don't really care what two faggotts do to each other (so long as they don't try it on me, that's cool). If they want to get married, its fine with me. But if a faggott wants to touch me etc that's not cool. So long as they keep their hands off and don't try to fag on me, or spread HIV etc deliberately, or molest kids etc, I got no problem.

Friend, please understand, gays already do get married. They are now demanded that everyone else recognize, endorse and honor their union.

People don't seem to understand and grasp that gays are asking for special rights, rights nobody has and ever had, and they are attempting to redefine marriage in a way that has never existed ever in any society. If you support that why not polygamy, or brother/sister marriage, or people marrying their pets?

[Cleanest Natural]

the coach = republican closet fag who goes an anti-gay crusades in order to cover up his own homosexual activity/desire ala mark foley, tim haggard , larry craig, bob allen , glen murphy , etc

[gib]

Friend, please understand, gays already do get married. They are now demanded that everyone else recognize, endorse and honor their union.

 If you support that why not polygamy, or brother/sister marriage, or people marrying their pets?

I do support all of these things. Pologamy is cool with me. If sibliings want marry, no problem with me. And if a guy really wants to marry hit pet, again its no problem with me at all. Each to his own I say, so long as what they do does not cause any harm to others, all's cool with me.

[pellius]

I do support all of these things. Pologamy is cool with me. If sibliings want marry, no problem with me. And if a guy really wants to marry hit pet, again its no problem with me at all. Each to his own I say, so long as what they do does not cause any harm to others, all's cool with me.

So insurance companies will have provide health care benefits for your cat?

Remember, the question is not how one lives their lives. If an adult brother and sister or brother and brother want to have sex and live together I don't have a problem with that. But the issue is what we as a society support, honor and endorse?

[pellius]

and ?

And?

And that you're a fuking queer who's a cowardly shit talker hiding behind a computer and in real life Coach will hand your flabby ass to you.

5'10", 230lbs, 10% -- LOL!

BTW, still having trouble satisfying your Black man's rectum?

when it comes to sex drive which drugs do you guys find work best

[dr.chimps]

I thought Coach had sworn off his manufactured outrage!?

[owner76]

Toe Touching Twink...

[Tapeworm]

The problem is people who are different than me.

[pellius]

meltdown , you should relax, get away from the computer for a while till your no longer whipped up in a frenzy

lol @ "meltdown" Your stock phrase due to lack of any coherent comeback when you are, once again, getting brutally owned.

You're such a pathetic little shit.

[pellius]

time for a break melty , your embarrassing yourself with your obsessed revenge quest against some one who made fun of the way you look 

What's the matter, fag? Getting to rough for you? Sucks getting your ass handed to you -- AGAIN!

BTW, I look in better shape and condition than you even have. If I didn't you would have proved me wrong long ago.

LOL @ "embarrassing yourself" Your quotes and pics on this thread are priceless. God, you are such a queer. Seriously. A straight up queer.

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=345775.0

[~UN_$ung~]

And you took the time to research thousands of case histories? OK.

The question still is, not whether or not judicial activism has occurred in the past, but do you support judges unilaterally over ruling the will of people and making law?

 


what are you even talking about, you have absolutely no leg to stand on here


no, obviously i havent researched them..........but a retarded person knows what im saying is true, its not even a debatable point



why do you think such a fuss is made about the nomination of supreme court judges

[Coach is Back!]

Is that "pugalist666"? aaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaha hahahahaha, 5'10 230 @ 10% BF? AAaaahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahaha! Changes my whole prospective on how to take this clowns posts..AAaahahahahahahah ahaha!

[stuntmovie]

Pellius, I tend to agree with some of the intelligent comments you've been making on this subject.

I have no hate or animosity against gays nor lesbians and bi-guys and bi-gals .... absolutely none at all ...

BUT my problem is the apparent fact that a judge can unilaterally rule against the will of the people.

If that turns out to be the case, there is something definitely wrong somewhere.

I is dumb when it comes to political and most legal matters but I honestly believe that there is something going on among these judges that we are not aware of and it's not a conspiracy theory.

Could it be possible that a gay judge was appointed in an effort to eventually initiate the legalization of gay 'marriages' for reason we may not be presently aware of?

And that all this legal mumbo-jumbo that is going on right now is some type of covert cover-up in an effort to 'save face'?

At present I firmly believe that the gay guys and gals are going to eventually win this battle which will lead to further complications regarding the justice system's right to control our lives by negating what the citizens have voted on.

I've have personally been involved in three court cases which definitely proved to me that some judges have less smarts than the average GI Joe selling pencils on the sidewalk. In one such case the judge ruled in favor of the 'accused' who played poker with him a few times each month and had absolutely no concern  for the kid who nearly had his foot amputated.

Nuff said. Thanks for list'nen.

[biff]

If you support same sex marriage, on what basis do you oppose people related to each other getting married? Say a father and a son, or brother/brother? Sister/sister?

marrying close family members to each other was common enough through most of history, especially with the ruling classes.

its only cultural differences that decide these things. in the US we dont eat dogs, the idea horrifies us - other countries eat them all day.

legal marriage should be open to any people that consent to it. marriage in a church, temple, etc., is just for show. it isnt legally binding without the secular license.

[pellius]

 


what are you even talking about, you have absolutely no leg to stand on here


no, obviously i havent researched them..........but a retarded person knows what im saying is true, its not even a debatable point



why do you think such a fuss is made about the nomination of supreme court judges

You seem to have avoided the question. I am not disputing that judicial activism takes place. It does and it's wrong. Just like this case where a single judge is over turning the rule of the people. My simple and direct question to you is do you support a single judge over ruling the will of the people in this case?

[pellius]

marrying close family members to each other was common enough through most of history, especially with the ruling classes.

its only cultural differences that decide these things. in the US we dont eat dogs, the idea horrifies us - other countries eat them all day.

legal marriage should be open to any people that consent to it. marriage in a church, temple, etc., is just for show. it isnt legally binding without the secular license.

I'm a bit confuse. I believe you said you were against family members marrying but now it sounds like you support it.

[pellius]

Pellius, I tend to agree with some of the intelligent comments you've been making on this subject.

I have no hate or animosity against gays nor lesbians and bi-guys and bi-gals .... absolutely none at all ...

BUT my problem is the apparent fact that a judge can unilaterally rule against the will of the people.

If that turns out to be the case, there is something definitely wrong somewhere.

I is dumb when it comes to political and most legal matters but I honestly believe that there is something going on among these judges that we are not aware of and it's not a conspiracy theory.

Could it be possible that a gay judge was appointed in an effort to eventually initiate the legalization of gay 'marriages' for reason we may not be presently aware of?

And that all this legal mumbo-jumbo that is going on right now is some type of covert cover-up in an effort to 'save face'?

At present I firmly believe that the gay guys and gals are going to eventually win this battle which will lead to further complications regarding the justice system's right to control our lives by negating what the citizens have voted on.

I've have personally been involved in three court cases which definitely proved to me that some judges have less smarts than the average GI Joe selling pencils on the sidewalk. In one such case the judge ruled in favor of the 'accused' who played poker with him a few times each month and had absolutely no concern  for the kid who nearly had his foot amputated.

Nuff said. Thanks for list'nen.

I really like reading your posts. You come across so sober and mature -- traits often lacking here.  

I do believe judges are often appointed base on their agenda. Not following constitutional law but injecting their personal beliefs and bias.

I also have no problem with gays per se. I find that most gays are not activists wanting to parade on the streets in hot pants shoving their life style in your face. Most just want to live their quietly and privately and mind their own business. It's the homosexual agenda I have a problem with. It's like their goal is to equate homosexuality with heterosexuality. That it wouldn't matter at all when your son goes out on his first date that he's hand and hand with a girl or hand in hand with a boy.