On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 12:20:14 GMT, "Michael Legel" >
wrote:

>
>"Wm James" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 20:45:55 GMT, "Michael Legel" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >And when you become a Supreme Court judge or can afford to buy one then
>your
>> >"rights" might become reality. Until then you are only stating opinions
>> >versus the reality I speak of .
>> >
>>
>> Ah, so if the Supreme Court were to rule that you have no freedom of
>> speech, rite to vote, right to a trial, etc, you would say "it's the
>> law and any argument is just stating opinions"?
>>
>> Hey, why bother with voting for silly things like congressional and
>> presidential races? It's a devine USSC dictatorship, right? Whatever
>> the life appointed judges say is fact, huh? Just let them make all
>> the laws and skip all the meaningless nonsense in the other two
>> branches. Sound good to you?
>>
>> William R. James
>
>Look BOZO, the Supremes already crowned King George ... and I didn't think the
>had the RIGHT to do that ... but they did.

Perhaps if you read the constitution and understood the simple process
we use to elect presidents in the US, you wouldn't parrot that BS.

>Unless you can figure out a way to
>change things they do indeed get be a "devine USSC dictatorship".

1) Elect presidents who will appoint judges who respect the
constitution. (Don't count on either of the major parties ever
nominating such a candidate.)
2) Elect a congress that will do it's duty and impeach federal judges,
INCLUDING Supreme Court "Gods", when they violate their constitutional
boundries.

>Where have
>you been you idiot?

I have never been "you idiot", not anywhere... Oh wait. I was "you
idiot" in a church once... At a wedding.... mine. But that was a long
time ago.

>As I told you before, it is not a matter of what you or
>"think ought to be" ... but what is reality.

The constitution isn't real?

>You summed it up nicely with a
>side order of snide. You do know the facts of reality evidently.

Yes I do. What you don't seem to realise is that the thread is cross
posted to groups like "this" one (alt.activism) where what is right,
what is constitutional, and what is legal, aren't necessarily the same
thing, but are all propert topics of discussion. I assume you are
reading the thread from one of the groups involved in the union issue
strictly from the standpoint of the union and business interactions,
and no particularly interested in the constitutional issues. In other
words, the group you are participating in is asking what the union can
and cannot do while in some groups the relevant questions are
regarding what constitutional issues are the courts ignoring to allow
the unions activities.

Get it now?

William R. James