SC Supreme Court order governor to take Obama stimulus money - Page 3 - New England Patriots Forums

***DarrylS*** · 06-08-2009, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NEPatriot

I knew what DARRYIS said. What I don't know is what you are saying. All i see you are doing is to tell me that Obama or liberal friend says this or that.

Why don't you let me know what you 'think' instead of repeating what others said, moron?

For a record, your liberal friend, DarryLs, told me to have a 'nice day' instead of answering my question. What else do you know? STill NOTHING.

You need to be banned again... I never told you to have a nice day.. have a shytty day maybe, but never have a nice day..

Talk about thinking, you should try it somedays it can be a wonderful experience..

wistahpatsfan · 06-08-2009, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NEPatriot

What kind of 'checks and balances' are you talking when the SC judges told the governor to take Obama's money?

What else do you want SC judges to tell the governor? Do you want them to run SC business if the governor can't do a better job?

Are you from another country?

If not, what is your cognitive disability, ...seriously... just so we know where you're coming from.

***patsfan13*** · 06-08-2009, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wistahpatsfan

Are you from another country?

If not, what is your cognitive disability, ...seriously... just so we know where you're coming from.

The courts acting in an imperial manner and orderingthe other branches around like gofers is relativly new in America. This sort of issue is none of their business. A legislature can appropriate $$ and there is no obligation on the executive to spend it.

These guys are judges not kings.

wistahpatsfan · 06-08-2009, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

The courts acting in an imperial manner and orderingthe other branches around like gofers is relativly new in America. This sort of issue is none of their business. A legislature can appropriate $$ and there is no obligation on the executive to spend it.

These guys are judges not kings.

I tend to agree with you, but tradition is not a legitimate reason for the courts ruling in any manner within their constitution. If the great state of South Carolina wants to restrict the scope of their courts, they can do so with a constitutional ammendment, no?

Besides, who says the Governor has a traditional or any other right to refuse federal money?

***NEPatriot*** · 06-08-2009, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarrylS

You need to be banned again... I never told you to have a nice day.. have a shytty day maybe, but never have a nice day..

This is what you said in page 1

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarrylS

I was right pearls to swine.. have a good day.

You have a memory problem.

Quote:

Talk about thinking, you should try it somedays it can be a wonderful experience..

It's a wonderful experience to see Obama changing the country, isn't it?

***patsfan13*** · 06-08-2009, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wistahpatsfan

I tend to agree with you, but tradition is not a legitimate reason for the courts ruling in any manner within their constitution. If the great state of South Carolina wants to restrict the scope of their courts, they can do so with a constitutional ammendment, no?

Besides, who says the Governor has a traditional or any other right to refuse federal money?

What if the court rejects the amendment. We see that on a regular basis. In a scrap between 2 branches of government courts have tended to butt, not now, they are unelected and have no business telling the other branches what to do. The are there to rule whether laws passed and signed are constitutional. It is none of their business to tell the legislature and executive how to behave. The voters shoud control those elected branches of government with their votes, not appointed judges who aren't accountable to voters.

***NEPatriot*** · 06-08-2009, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wistahpatsfan

Are you from another country?

If not, what is your cognitive disability, ...seriously... just so we know where you're coming from.

from CA in USA.

***NEPatriot*** · 06-08-2009, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wistahpatsfan

I tend to agree with you, but tradition is not a legitimate reason for the courts ruling in any manner within their constitution. If the great state of South Carolina wants to restrict the scope of their courts, they can do so with a constitutional ammendment, no?

When was the last time you saw the SC judges invited to a state budget discussion?

Quote:

Besides, who says the Governor has a traditional or any other right to refuse federal money?

If he can accept the money, he doesn't have a right to REFUSE IT? You make a lot of senses here.

wistahpatsfan · 06-08-2009, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

What if the court rejects the amendment. We see that on a regular basis. In a scrap between 2 branches of government courts have tended to butt, not now, they are unelected and have no business telling the other branches what to do. The are there to rule whether laws passed and signed are constitutional. It is none of their business to tell the legislature and executive how to behave. The voters shoud control those elected branches of government with their votes, not appointed judges who aren't accountable to voters.

You think judges should be elected?

If they have no business telling the other two branches what to do, then what is their role? They should rule only on the constitutionality of a law? They can't rule on the constitutionality of any executive order? So the governor, as long as he's in office and not impeached, can do whatever he wants for four years?

***NEPatriot*** · 06-08-2009, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wistahpatsfan

You think judges should be elected?

If they have no business telling the other two branches what to do, then what is their role?

They suppose to be between us and the government. We all want 'fair' trials, don't we?

Who is going to decise our case if i sue you or you sue government?

Quote:

They should rule only on the constitutionality of a law? They can't rule on the constitutionality of any executive order?

They are there to intepret the rules NOT to create their own rules.

Quote:

So the governor, as long as he's in office and not impeached, can do whatever he wants for four years?

It's the reason we have VOTERS, SENATORS, and CONGRESSMEN.

How do you get a governor IMPEACHED? VOTERS or SENATORS. You know *****.