[quote name='thrustbucket']The court system gets bashed because it's often run amock. Many courts are corrupt and legislate pure extreme agendas all the time in many parts of the country. I suspect you can agree with that fact, even if this case is not an example.
It's relatively easy to get a handful of corrupt people in robes that can advance agendas or consistently go against peoples will, that's where I take issue. Many court systems are about as legit and useful as Chicago government.[/quote]
You're smarter than this. This is pure ideology, lacking substance, precedent, and evidence.
What's an "extreme agenda," other than a right-wing catch phrase that stands for "everything other than right-wing ideology and policy"? It's a useless phrase; it carries with it no concept, defined or vague, as to what it stands for. When it stands for nothing, it's uselss.
How has it "run amok"? Cite precedent. Show how it violates both the will of the people and the constitution (or, rather, sided with the will of the people and gone against the constitution without changing the document - that would go outside the boundaries of their job description!).
Lastly, you make vague unfounded insinuations about corruption that, again, have no basis in fact. I can point to the two PA juvenile justice judges that took $2.6M in kickbacks from the companies who ran the private juvenile institutions there as evidence of corruption, but what have you given me other than vague, unprovable allusions?
Tyra Banks might have a dick.
If you want to continuously invoke the intentions of this governments founding (a new one for you, I admit) then it's important to point out just how much more powerful courts have become since it's founding.
"how much more powerful courts have become" sums up your argument nicely. Not because it's a particularly good argument, but because it bundles up, into one nice package, your use of unsubstantiated claims, as well as comparative language that offers up no actual comparative basis. It's like when I get papers in class that start off with something like "poverty is becoming a significant social problem" (hypothetically speaking). That's the whole sentence. It's meaningless, it's useless, it puts me to sleep, it's a shit sentence, it offers up no comparison, no context, just some kind of horrible, horrible vagary that middle and high-school teachers don't correct on their children. It's a commonly abused sentence with no nutritional value that serves as a means by which people commonly say "um, here's the part where I start my paper on this topic."
If I say "meat has changed since the founding of the united states of america," that's not a particularly informative sentence, is it? What about meat has changed? what animals? the price? the quality? the hormones? the portions? the fat content? the color? What a crappy thing to tell me, as now I have more contextual questions than I do answers!
That's kinda the problem with what you're getting at. I simply don't see much information other than a litany of accusations that you somehow expect me to believe in the matter-of-factness of. Which, I'm afraid, both I, and you, know bloody better than that. And you're smarter and better read than to offer up something like this in comparison.
Don't let me catch you doing this again.
tradition. What the hell's it gettin' in the way for?
