" Why must SCOTUS be right? If they understood the Constitution, why would the justices disagree with each other so often? Why would they ever have 5-4 decisions? "
Seriously...you're embarrassing yourself. SCOTUS is the final arbiter of what is and what is not Constitutional. If you don't accept that (and it's been that way since 1803), you are a traitor your own country and its Constitution. When SCOTUS rules, it is by definition the LAW OF THE LAND.
When you say "think for yourself," what you mean is "reject the government." Sorry. I won't do that.
I disagree with a lot of SCOTUS decisions, particularly as they apply to the 2nd Amendment and campaign financing. While I disagree, I still accept those rulings as the law of the land. That's the country we live in...a nation of laws, not a fantasy nation stuck in the 18th century.
Incidentally, you constantly bring up 5-4 decisions. Those split decisions have EXACTLY the same legal effect as any 9-0 decision. Your assertion that a close decision is suspect on its face is indefensible.
Dissent is routine and protected by the First Amendment. But for those who think we are living under a runaway unconstitutional rogue government, I have one piece of advice. Find a country...any country...that is better.
Thank you for reporting this Pam Zubeck and the Independent.
It is just so. Save Cheyenne's appeal has legs and the Broadmoor knows it.
Was a new record set by Lathen and Jack for the most amount spent for candidates to lose? For what Colorado Springs Forward is spending, they could be buying up prime ocean-front property in Nebraska.
How is this for a conspiracy theory: Trump is getting anxious because Congressional and FBI investigations are narrowing in on his campaign's collusion with Russia. He has tried to derail the investigations with tweets about phony "wire tap" conspiracies, trying to send the investigators off on a wild goose chase, but these tactics have only served to delay the investigations, not end them. So, he cooks up a cynical scheme with Putin to get Syria to use chemical weapons, so that Trump can feign outrage and shed a few crocodile tears for the innocent children--whose blood is on his hands as well as Assad's and Putin's--before launching a "retaliatory" missile attack, so he can pretend to be at odds with Russia.
The missile attack is a great propaganda success, in spite of being so ineffective it fails to actually halt Syrian use of the air strip, which was exactly the desired outcome--that is, to look like we are attacking, without causing any real damage to the Syrian war machine. But it gives Trump and his ally Putin a chance to rave and rant as if they have actually fallen out. Because of this phony, but well-orchestrated, con job, people start to think Trump could not be working hand-in-glove with the most vicious enemy of our nation and all of humanity, leaving Trump and Putin free to continue their clandestine campaign to destroy American freedom and democracy.
Fortunately, the plan seems to be failing, as it has not stopped the steady release of damning evidence against the Trump election campaign staff that is now pouring in even from foreign intelligence agencies around the world. Unfortunately, this setback may serve to spur the despotic duo into even more desperate and deadlier measures to hide their collusion in the promotion of their evil agenda.
...Ahh to have two hypocrite Christians in the same SCANDAL , Amy Lathen and soulless Sarah Jack. Yes they represent dark money that has a hidden agenda that only benefits themselves..... GREAT ! . They do not believe in a Democracy they believe Billionaires should be able to control the masses for their benefit only. We have seen the greedy "Bully of the Broadmoor" steal Strawberry Fields from the public, having $10 Billion , being 46th on the Forbes richest Americans list is not enough. He steals from the poor using shills like Lathen and Jack. Fellow Citizens let us FOREVER bury DARK MONEY CANDIDATES in this town !!
In his very first post to this thread, Skycastle called Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, a "vile racist." Fortunately, Wikipedia tells the true story:
"Sanger worked with eminent African American leaders and professionals who saw a need for birth control in their communities. In 1929, James H. Hubert, a black social worker and the leader of New York's Urban League, asked Sanger to open a clinic in Harlem. Sanger secured funding from the Julius Rosenwald Fund and opened the clinic, staffed with black doctors, in 1930. The clinic was directed by a 15-member advisory board consisting of black doctors, nurses, clergy, journalists, and social workers. The clinic was publicized in the African-American press as well as in black churches, and it received the approval of W. E. B. Du Bois, the co-founder of the NAACP and the editor of its magazine, *The Crisis*. Sanger did not tolerate bigotry among her staff, nor would she tolerate any refusal to work within interracial projects. Sanger's work with minorities earned praise from Martin Luther King, Jr., in his 1966 acceptance speech for the Margaret Sanger award."
Skycastle went even further, calling her a "genocidal maniac." Wikipedia says: "Due to her connection with Planned Parenthood Sanger is a frequent target of criticism by opponents of abortion, although Planned Parenthood did not begin providing abortions until 1970, after Sanger had already died."
Perhaps, Skycastle believes promoting birth control is an evil, and tantamount to genocide! Or, he believes he has no duty to verify biased propaganda, as long as it seems to validate his prejudices.
Given these egregious errors and distortions of plain, simple facts, I see no reason to give any credence whatsoever to anything he writes or says.
"It's sad that you refuse to think for yourself." What you really mean is you are sad because I don't agree with you. And by not agreeing with you, I establish that I do think for myself.
"That makes you a sheep." Bah! Not that tired, old argument again, that anyone who disagrees with you is an easily led sheep! I have seen this same trope trotted out dozens of times--you, yourself, resort to it twice in a row!--and it always indicates the writer cannot defend his views using facts and logic, so he must resort to name calling. Furthermore, you don't know me, but you will not let your ignorance interfere with insulting me just to score some dubious debating points.
If you were really as intelligent as you think you are, you would get to know me and see if there are any arguments I respond to positively. Then, you might actually win a convert to your cause. Instead, you dictate your opinions and slander anyone with the temerity to disagree. That is the behavior of one who does not even believe his own words, and needs to validate his ideas by bullying others into agreement.
"Dumb people make their lives easy, because they're too befuddled to disagree." Since I have consistent disagreed with you, I cannot be befuddled. But you are most definitely befuddled, as you do not even realize that you are the one who is acting "dumb!" Because only dumb people try to win an argument by name calling.
"Americans have a right to disagree with all branches of government when we think they're wrong." But you never said you disagreed with the Supreme Court. You said the court should not be trusted. That undermines the judiciary.
I disagree with some court decisions, but I trust that the justices are honorable and working as hard as they can to arrive at just decisions, and I trust our system of government will eventually correct any mistakes they make, because our system provides for such corrections. It is true that judges can be corrupted and bribed, but I doubt you have any evidence that any Supreme Court justices have ever been guilty of those crimes.
Most important, by accepting the court's rulings, however you may disagree, you just might avoid turning a serious dispute into a bloody war. By sowing distrust you guarantee that even minor disputes will end in violence.
Mr. Skycastle, I see you did not bother to deny that you are a troll on Putin's payroll. Is that a tacit admission that you are indeed an anti-American, pro-Russia troll?
Afraid Jim Mullen is telling it like it is.
Tomorrow Friday April 14 we will hold signs and pass out leaflets concerning the amount of tax payer money going to the military (about 50%). We'll be at the downtown Post Office from 12 -1. See you there. Spread the word. For more than 40 years there has bee a similar gathering in Colorado Springs.
Is Doug Bruce using the name Skycastle on this board? Doug, is that you? Sure sounds like you!
More insider dealing in our local club of the well connected. It's way past time to clean house in this city.
Don't expect him to say anything; he's the biggest nothing in Congress.
So glad the idiotic concept of a downtown air museum died so quickly, it was a terrible idea, one of the most insipidly stupid schemes ever. We have both an airport (WITH AN EXISTING AIR MUSEUM !!!) and the USAF Academy nearby to host such an attraction and do so in the right context. We have great air museums in DC, Seattle, Dayton and other places, we don't need to plunk one down here, at least not at taxpayer expense on prime city land far from any airport. Good grief.
Council should investigate why such a bad concept even got traction with the mayor in the first place. What it means is a good old boy club of local USAF retirees manages somehow to exert inappropriate influence on local politicians. With all the billions in the USAF budget let them build their own museum and stop trying to pick our pockets. There are enough millionaires and well to do types in the ranks of USAF retirees that they should chip in THEIR money to build a museum to their branch of the service.
I say NO NO NO to using any local tax money for any military museum. It's ridiculous, just like the City for Champions was a terrible idea foisted on us by the same developers who foisted the "strong mayor" scheme to pave the way for C4C. Stop as much of C4C as you can. Stop this creepy insider dealing. When outside developers find that this city isn't reserved for the same bunch of local insiders then maybe we'll get some really good outside investment here. But that's still a long shot given TABOR.
Regarding the high regard people and corporations have for Boulder and Denver, ask yourself these questions: Are there any megachurches in Boulder? Are their roads paved as a routine matter of good maintenance, good government, and not an emergency? Have they de-TABOR'd in those places?
SCRAP the crooked "strong mayor" scheme crammed down our throats. STOP unelected dudes (Jenkins, Anschutz, Schnuck, et al) from wreaking their greed upon us by only needing to buy up just that one politician. The strong mayor scheme was step one in a brazen set of plans that included C4C as step two and who knows what hides up their sleeves as steps three and four, etc. RETURN power to the people. Now.
Bill, I respect people like you who support the Constitution. I'm with you here - I've been a strident supporter of the Constitution for decades. I believe in original intent - which is how our Founding Fathers' wrote and understood the Constitution. Unfortunately, most supreme court justices no longer support original intent. They prefer to re-interpret the Constitution whenever it suits them, even when their interpretation is opposite what our Founders intended. That's federal lawlessness and judicial anarchy, and we're living under it. It's become so bad that today we have a federal government which routinely violates the Constitution, while claiming to uphold it. And since most Americans have such a poor understanding of the Constitution, it's easy for the government to violate it with little outcry from citizens. If people don't understand it, how can they defend it? This is the problem I always have with online discussions people who lack even a basic understanding of the Constitution (especially in regard to limited federal power) - yet have strong opinions about it.
You wrote: Why put your trust in them? How about because SCOTUS is a co-equal branch of the government created by the Founding Fathers in the CONSTITUTION.
Yes, SCOTUS is part of the federal government, but our Founders NEVER told us to put our trust in government not any branch. Do you understand this? Instead, they urged us to remain vigilant and keep government under control. That's why Benjamin Franklin is famous for saying that they had given us a republic if we can keep it. Because it's up to us the people to protect our Constitution and our rights. We can't just hand our brains over to government, assuming that govt. must be right. That way lies tyranny, for an ignorant and complacent people are easy to control and manipulate.
You wrote: you think your opinion is right and SCOTUS is wrong. You got that backwards. Really Bill? Why? Why must SCOTUS be right? If they understood the Constitution, why would the justices disagree with each other so often? Why would they ever have 5-4 decisions? Obviously, a law degree doesn't guarantee proper understanding. That's why it's so important for people to be able to think for themselves. If we can't freedom will die. An ignorant population will be unable to protect itself from federal abuse of the Constitution, and their rights will be continually trampled until freedom is dead. That's what's happening today. People who can't think for themselves are called sheep, and they need a shepherd government to guide them in all things and protect them from themselves.
You wrote: Your eagerness to dismiss SCOTUS reveals your contempt for everything in the Constitution that doesn't make you happy. It's not a buffet where you can pick and choose. It's the CONSTITUTION, and you don't get to reject SCOTUS and then say you're just following the Constitution.
So Bill, do you see where you're wrong here? You're confusing SCOTUS with the Constitution, and the two are very different. Our allegiance should be to the Constitution itself not to a group of people who mangle it continually with their idiotic interpretations which aren't even based on original intent. SCOTUS treats the Constitution like a buffet I don't. Here's an article I wrote about this issue, so please read it:
Councilors should explore ending the strong mayor scheme foisted on us by developers the other year. We don't need one person acting alone to run this city; we need a city government "of the people" not "of the developers."
Underhanded to hide opportunities from others in the community.
Mr. K, does your opinion on an issue change when the supreme court disagrees with you? What about when they disagree with themselves? That happens often, and this proves that a law degree doesn't guarantee proper understanding. If it did, then the SCOTUS justices would always agree with each other. BTW, that's rare.
As for Undermining the judiciary, all Americans have a right to disagree with all branches of government when we think they're wrong. Are you under the impression that presidents, congressmen, and supreme court justices are always right? Do you hand your brain over to them to think for you? It's sad that you refuse to think for yourself. That makes you a sheep. And of course, sheep need a shepherd. Government will gladly lead and control you all your life. Dumb people make their lives easy, because they're too befuddled to disagree.
Norwood will get it's million dollar investment in buying a new form of government back on the Olympic Museum deal.
All of today's events | Staff Picks
Submit an Event
All content © Copyright 2017, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation