Opinion in TCash101 v. Southeast (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 25, 2024, 02:02:54 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  Opinion in TCash101 v. Southeast (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Opinion in TCash101 v. Southeast  (Read 4524 times)
jerusalemcar5
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,731
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -4.26, S: -8.35

« on: July 18, 2006, 11:58:20 AM »

This makes me proud I voted to confirm Texas Gurl, and realize my vote on Emsworth may have been an accident.  I have never seen such a blatant violation of the Constitution.  it is open and shut.  I also believe Emsworth should have had enough mind to recuse himself from the case, or at least make everyone very aware he had written the initiative, because I did not know.  I support the comments of others that the Court was usuing judicial activism, not sound constitutional judgement, to rule on this case.
Logged
jerusalemcar5
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,731
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -4.26, S: -8.35

« Reply #1 on: July 18, 2006, 07:06:45 PM »

I support the comments of others that the Court was usuing judicial activism, not sound constitutional judgement, to rule on this case.

Do you even know what judicial activism is?

Yes it is when you put personal feelings ahead of the law in order to amend, uphold, or create laws.
Logged
jerusalemcar5
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,731
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -4.26, S: -8.35

« Reply #2 on: July 18, 2006, 07:31:06 PM »

Yes it is when you put personal feelings ahead of the law in order to amend, uphold, or create laws.

And you're going to say this is what happened every time the Court hands down a decision you disagree with, correct?

No, I disagreed with their decision against me that the Senate only needed 6 votes to override yet that was backed up by a reasonable Atlasian constitutional argument. 

This law allows employers to deny employees the right to collective bargaining because they can fire them for excercising their rights under the constitution.  Employers cannot deny someone a constitutional right.

This is similar to saying an employers can ban an employee from practicing a religion. Disgusting.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.022 seconds with 10 queries.