And these people still get to vote! #@$#$ - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

lurkette · 06-23-2003, 08:14 AM

http://www.ncbuy.com/news/wireless_n...C9O48816030623

June 23, 2003 - Wireless Flash
Around The Weird: Bizarre News Briefs

MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. (Wireless Flash) -- The justices on the Supreme Court are supremely unrecognized by the American public. According to a survey by FindLaw.com, 66 percent of Americans can't name even one justice. The most popular judge, Sandra Day O'Connor, only received 25 percent of the vote. Meanwhile, only 1 percent knew there's a justice named John Paul Stevens.

-------------

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!!!! 66%!!!!
I'm living in a nation populated with IDIOTS!!!
sigh

The_Dude · 06-23-2003, 08:18 AM

remember that 30% or so americans believe that we found wmd's in iraq??

it is sad.......

but i can name all 4 good guys and 5 bad guys on the court

Sparhawk · 06-23-2003, 08:46 AM

How ironic, considering only the votes of the 9 justices really matter these days.

geep · 06-23-2003, 10:07 AM

If only the Congress had the power to impeach them along with all their appellate sidekicks who rule by edict and ignore the laws passed by the electors of the people.

Sparhawk · 06-23-2003, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by geep
If only the Congress had the power to impeach them along with all their appellate sidekicks who rule by edict and ignore the laws passed by the electors of the people.

Congress, The House of Representatives to be more specific, *does* have the power to impeach them, along with 'all their appellate sidekicks...'.

IIRC, only 2 federal judges have been impeached, both at the appellate level, not at the 'Supreme' level (doesn't that sound ostentacious?).

Charlatan · 06-23-2003, 10:34 AM

I'm not sure why it is such a bad thing that people don't know the names of the justices of the Supreme Court.

I couldn't name one of them in the Canadian supreme court and I consider myself well informed. They aren't elected officials, they are appointed by Parliament, so I don't have to have an opinion on them only their rulings.

KillerYoda · 06-23-2003, 10:53 AM

I can name a few (Rehnquist, Scalia, Ginsburg, O'Connor, Thomas, Kennedy are all I know) and I only remember Clarence Thomas because of the old "pube on the Coke can" incident. The others are just because O'Connor is Texan, Rehnquist is the head, Kennedy has a familiar name, and the others had court cases I had to memorize for government class.

geep · 06-23-2003, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sparhawk
Congress, The House of Representatives to be more specific, *does* have the power to impeach them, along with 'all their appellate sidekicks...'.

I know they do, they just don't have the guts to do it. When judges and justices forget that it is their responsibility to administer the law, not change it, they should be removed. The judiciary branch of this country has overstepped their constitutional limits in a much more grievous manner than John Ashcroft ever has. Because of their liberal nature and the liberal bias of the media, it goes largely unnoticed

smooth · 06-23-2003, 11:11 AM

I agree with Charlatan.

Supreme Court proceedings aren't open to the public, mass media rarely disseminate their names, and only a few cases are highly publicized.

Where would people consistently expose themselves to the Justices' names--by reading case law all day?

The_Dude · 06-23-2003, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by geep
I know they do, they just don't have the guts to do it. When judges and justices forget that it is their responsibility to administer the law, not change it, they should be removed. The judiciary branch of this country has overstepped their constitutional limits in a much more grievous manner than John Ashcroft ever has. Because of their liberal nature and the liberal bias of the media, it goes largely unnoticed

oh come on....the supreme court is as conservative as it's ever benn (oh how i miss the days of the warren court...)

renquest is like the most conservative head of the supreme court ever and add clarence thomas to that.

you have the most conservative 2some ever.

Kadath · 06-23-2003, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
oh come on....the supreme court is as conservative as it's ever benn (oh how i miss the days of the warren court...)

renquest is like the most conservative head of the supreme court ever and add clarence thomas to that.

you have the most conservative 2some ever.

You mean threesome. Clarence Thomas automatically takes that spineless assclown Scalia wherever he goes.

lurkette · 06-23-2003, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by smooth
I agree with Charlatan.

Supreme Court proceedings aren't open to the public, mass media rarely disseminate their names, and only a few cases are highly publicized.

Where would people consistently expose themselves to the Justices' names--by reading case law all day?

But they represent an entire branch of government, or at least its most visible manifestation, and they have the power to check the other two. Even if they're appointed, not elected, they are still powerful people whose decisions have an impact on our lives, and I would expect responsible citizens (ha) to have some idea of even ONE name. ONE!!!

As to where people would be exposed ot their names, try the newspaper, NPR, and (every time a major case is decided) television news. They talk about which ones are going to retire every time they argue about GWB appointing judges. For fucks sake there are ONLY NINE OF THEM. It's not like it's that hard to remember ONE! It's just a piece of information I would expect people to know if they had the least modicum of interest in our government, which apparently 66% of my fellow citizens do not. It's disgraceful.

Anphernus · 06-23-2003, 05:49 PM

I think it's scarier that 30% of Americans think we found WMDs, thus clearing our President, than 66% of Americans not knowing the head of one branch of government.

Alright, so you can name a few Supreme Court Justices... hello, there are very few actual Supreme Court cases, most of the time a case remains in the court of original jurisdiction.

Furthermore, they don't do very much in terms of media attention. Ooh they cleared programs like Napster and made them legal, that's so special.

They don't make laws, and they dont rule our country. Being a judge is basically a free ride when you get tenure. The pay is good, and in lower courts there is a jury that gets to make the decision for you. No grief, no 'failure'.

IMO, being a supreme court judge would be one of the easiest jobs I can think of. You get very well pay, you don't make life-threatening decisions -- we hope -- and you don't have to know every law any more.

A normal prosecutor will have to know every law that applies to all of his or her potential cases. That's a very large amount of laws.

A Supreme Court Justice will only have to study and read about a few laws (Napster's trial involved only a few laws) and as a Justice you get a manilla folder filled with all the previous hearings of your current case.

I wouldn't be surprised if a few Justices didn't just randomly pick a verdict based on the hearings of previous trials.

The_Dude · 06-23-2003, 06:25 PM

actually, they have assistants (smartest law students from the best law schools) that brief them and discuss cases w/ them.

i really dont think there is any guesswork involved; i think most of the judges really do take their jobs very seriously, as their vote could set the precedent for cases to come.

chavos · 06-23-2003, 06:36 PM

for those who do want to know about them....http://www.oyez.org/

Audio of arguements, decisions, etc...the whole works.

j8ear · 06-23-2003, 10:16 PM

I agree with the_ dude. Those justices take their jobs VERY seriously. Best law students and other apprentices not with standing.

They are appointed for life and produce a pant load of opinions. I actually read them frequently. New ones at least once a month. Very interesting. Four-fives, six-threes. Vacated, reversed and remanded for further consideration not inconsistent with this opinion, it is so ordered. It's brilliant. We elect the Senators, who approve the nominees, the President we elect, sends them. Every Justice was so appointed. That's how it works, and I think it works excellently.

They are not united on very many issues. Most are just that close, 5-4 or 6-3. Scalia could skew it (never realized that Thomas always followed him, he sure didn't on the cross burning issue) O'Connor obviously. I would love to interview her. The left always wants the feds or other government involved, collecting money for and administering what ever. Often under the guise of ‘it’s the right thing to do’ or ‘compelling government interest.’ The right always wants 'the man' to stay out of it. Local issues local solutions. Feds stay out. Yet that is not always true. They often uphold ridiculous powers of search and seizure for just about every law enforcement department. They (the right) are very tolerant of few restrictions on prisons, and administration of penal restitution.

My fav is Scalia. Strict interpretationist. Doesn't believe in that wishy-washy evolving document crap. Free speech unlimited. You ~can~ yell fire in a crowded theatre. All arms restrictions unconstitutional, You have no right to be gay (state, not feds, can outlaw) or even unoffended.

By the way, Supreme Court proceedings ~are~ all open to the public. In two ways, a continuously revolving line comprising 80 percent of the spectators, for fifteen minutes each. The remaining 20 percent are for half-day access. Justices deliberations are not public of course. Opinions are published immediately upon release in pdf format at supremecourtus.gov.

over,

bear

rth9821 · 06-23-2003, 10:16 PM

Nice link chavos, thanks

Phaenx · 06-23-2003, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
oh come on....the supreme court is as conservative as it's ever benn (oh how i miss the days of the warren court...)

renquest is like the most conservative head of the supreme court ever and add clarence thomas to that.

you have the most conservative 2some ever.

You make that sound like a bad thing!! I think the court is too liberal, we need MORE conservatives making phat rulings driven by common sense =D.

Sparhawk · 06-24-2003, 04:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Phaenx
You make that sound like a bad thing!! I think the court is too liberal, we need MORE conservatives making phat rulings driven by common sense =D.

Yeah, you know what we really need is to go back to the good ol' days of Jim Crow laws, and more Dred Scott decisions.

Yup, definitely the Good Ol' Days.

geep · 06-24-2003, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sparhawk
Yeah, you know what we really need is to go back to the good ol' days of Jim Crow laws, and more Dred Scott decisions.

Yup, definitely the Good Ol' Days.

Or the good ol' days of telling us the "Pledge of Allegiance" is unconstitutional. Come on these guys carve out a fat niche of power and use that power to force their opinions on the rest of the country. It's time to come to grips with their abuses.

The_Dude · 06-24-2003, 07:19 AM

it is unconstitutional, i dont want to swear allegiance to anything related to god.

earl warren is turning in his grave now

geep · 06-24-2003, 07:34 AM

So what if you don't want to. Is this a rule by minority? What if the majority of Americans DO want it? It does nothing to establish a state religion- that would be unconstitutional. The First Amendment says"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," it doesn't say government documents can't mention God. Let Earl Warren, Icon of the Abusers, rock. If the people want to change the wording LET THEM VOTE ON IT. Don't just issue lordly edicts from on high with the false pretense of "interpreting" the Constitution.

The_Dude · 06-24-2003, 07:55 AM

let's not hijack this thread here. but i'd like to remind you that the purpose of the bill of rights was the protect minorities from majorities. if you look around the system, you'll numerous examples of limiting majorities.

Sparhawk · 06-24-2003, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by geep
So what if you don't want to. Is this a rule by minority? What if the majority of Americans DO want it?

Tyranny of the majority. It worked for the Nazis in Germany, why not here?

geep · 06-24-2003, 10:51 AM

So we're to subjugate ourselves to a tyranny of the minority because it's better? The Bill of Rights was written to protect the individual.

seretogis · 06-24-2003, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by geep
So we're to subjugate ourselves to a tyranny of the minority because it's better? The Bill of Rights was written to protect the individual.

To those who despise the "stupid masses", the minority is king.

Daval · 06-24-2003, 11:19 AM

I would kindly ask people to take a deep breath and calm down before they compose replies.

Lets not fall into a pissing match.

The_Dude · 06-24-2003, 01:18 PM

cuz i'll win such a contest

geep · 06-24-2003, 01:40 PM

Let me get home from work and grab a few cold ones and I'll challenge that.

weedline · 06-25-2003, 05:18 PM

tHE dUDED
Why do you keep pissing on your self.

The_Dude · 06-25-2003, 05:41 PM

i am not gonna respond to that.

i'm not going to stoop down to your level

KillerYoda · 06-25-2003, 06:11 PM

Badass, I get to show this again:

Lebell · 06-25-2003, 06:33 PM

I'll add my own request to all parties to calm down.

Do I have to add that you've all been asked twice now by mods to keep from making this personal?

TaLoN · 06-25-2003, 07:04 PM

it is hard to keep politics from becoming personal. liberals and conservatives will never agree no matter how logical their arguments are. it is like trying to get a gorilla and a rattle snake to play with each other.

The_Dude · 06-25-2003, 07:29 PM

more like a donkey and an elephant!

dry humor, couldnt help it

nofnway · 06-25-2003, 09:34 PM

I still don't understand why it is important to recognize the supreme court justices when most folks don't know justice when they get it......

Maybe if the signed some lucrative black robe contracts....or something....

Don't we all know who plays for the Lakers?
Or for the stupid masses who drives #8 or #24 or #20 on the NASCAR circuit?

magic_hat · 06-25-2003, 09:47 PM

i dont think its important to know who the justices are but it is iimportant to know somehow that people are getting fair rulings...dont try to prove it to me by shoving a proud looking judge infront of an american flag and have him or her smile or pose as if they are helping everyone by keeping justice. its important to know who the puppets are and who really is running the show.

06-23-2003, 08:14 AM	#1 (permalink)
lurkette My future is coming on Moderator Emeritus Location: east of the sun and west of the moon	And these people still get to vote! #@$#$ http://www.ncbuy.com/news/wireless_n...C9O48816030623 June 23, 2003 - Wireless Flash Around The Weird: Bizarre News Briefs MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. (Wireless Flash) -- The justices on the Supreme Court are supremely unrecognized by the American public. According to a survey by FindLaw.com, 66 percent of Americans can't name even one justice. The most popular judge, Sandra Day O'Connor, only received 25 percent of the vote. Meanwhile, only 1 percent knew there's a justice named John Paul Stevens. ------------- AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!!!! 66%!!!! I'm living in a nation populated with IDIOTS!!! sigh __________________ "If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." - Anatole France

06-23-2003, 08:18 AM	#2 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	remember that 30% or so americans believe that we found wmd's in iraq?? it is sad....... but i can name all 4 good guys and 5 bad guys on the court __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

06-23-2003, 08:46 AM	#3 (permalink)
Sparhawk Dubya Location: VA	How ironic, considering only the votes of the 9 justices really matter these days. __________________ "In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

06-23-2003, 10:34 AM	#6 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	I'm not sure why it is such a bad thing that people don't know the names of the justices of the Supreme Court. I couldn't name one of them in the Canadian supreme court and I consider myself well informed. They aren't elected officials, they are appointed by Parliament, so I don't have to have an opinion on them only their rulings. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

06-23-2003, 10:53 AM	#7 (permalink)
KillerYoda The Original Emo Gangsta Location: Sixth Floor, Texas School Book Depository	I can name a few (Rehnquist, Scalia, Ginsburg, O'Connor, Thomas, Kennedy are all I know) and I only remember Clarence Thomas because of the old "pube on the Coke can" incident. The others are just because O'Connor is Texan, Rehnquist is the head, Kennedy has a familiar name, and the others had court cases I had to memorize for government class. __________________ "So you're Chekov, huh? Well, this here's McCoy. Find a Spock, we got us an away team."

06-23-2003, 10:07 AM	#4 (permalink)
geep Insane Location: Imprisoned in Ecotopia	If only the Congress had the power to impeach them along with all their appellate sidekicks who rule by edict and ignore the laws passed by the electors of the people.

06-23-2003, 11:11 AM	#9 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	I agree with Charlatan. Supreme Court proceedings aren't open to the public, mass media rarely disseminate their names, and only a few cases are highly publicized. Where would people consistently expose themselves to the Justices' names--by reading case law all day? __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

06-23-2003, 05:49 PM	#13 (permalink)
Anphernus Upright	I think it's scarier that 30% of Americans think we found WMDs, thus clearing our President, than 66% of Americans not knowing the head of one branch of government. Alright, so you can name a few Supreme Court Justices... hello, there are very few actual Supreme Court cases, most of the time a case remains in the court of original jurisdiction. Furthermore, they don't do very much in terms of media attention. Ooh they cleared programs like Napster and made them legal, that's so special. They don't make laws, and they dont rule our country. Being a judge is basically a free ride when you get tenure. The pay is good, and in lower courts there is a jury that gets to make the decision for you. No grief, no 'failure'. IMO, being a supreme court judge would be one of the easiest jobs I can think of. You get very well pay, you don't make life-threatening decisions -- we hope -- and you don't have to know every law any more. A normal prosecutor will have to know every law that applies to all of his or her potential cases. That's a very large amount of laws. A Supreme Court Justice will only have to study and read about a few laws (Napster's trial involved only a few laws) and as a Justice you get a manilla folder filled with all the previous hearings of your current case. I wouldn't be surprised if a few Justices didn't just randomly pick a verdict based on the hearings of previous trials.

06-23-2003, 06:25 PM	#14 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	actually, they have assistants (smartest law students from the best law schools) that brief them and discuss cases w/ them. i really dont think there is any guesswork involved; i think most of the judges really do take their jobs very seriously, as their vote could set the precedent for cases to come. __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

06-23-2003, 06:36 PM	#15 (permalink)
chavos Banned Location: St. Paul, MN	for those who do want to know about them....http://www.oyez.org/ Audio of arguements, decisions, etc...the whole works.

06-23-2003, 10:16 PM	#16 (permalink)
j8ear Gentlemen Farmer Location: Middle of nowhere, Jersey	I agree with the_ dude. Those justices take their jobs VERY seriously. Best law students and other apprentices not with standing. They are appointed for life and produce a pant load of opinions. I actually read them frequently. New ones at least once a month. Very interesting. Four-fives, six-threes. Vacated, reversed and remanded for further consideration not inconsistent with this opinion, it is so ordered. It's brilliant. We elect the Senators, who approve the nominees, the President we elect, sends them. Every Justice was so appointed. That's how it works, and I think it works excellently. They are not united on very many issues. Most are just that close, 5-4 or 6-3. Scalia could skew it (never realized that Thomas always followed him, he sure didn't on the cross burning issue) O'Connor obviously. I would love to interview her. The left always wants the feds or other government involved, collecting money for and administering what ever. Often under the guise of ‘it’s the right thing to do’ or ‘compelling government interest.’ The right always wants 'the man' to stay out of it. Local issues local solutions. Feds stay out. Yet that is not always true. They often uphold ridiculous powers of search and seizure for just about every law enforcement department. They (the right) are very tolerant of few restrictions on prisons, and administration of penal restitution. My fav is Scalia. Strict interpretationist. Doesn't believe in that wishy-washy evolving document crap. Free speech unlimited. You ~can~ yell fire in a crowded theatre. All arms restrictions unconstitutional, You have no right to be gay (state, not feds, can outlaw) or even unoffended. By the way, Supreme Court proceedings ~are~ all open to the public. In two ways, a continuously revolving line comprising 80 percent of the spectators, for fifteen minutes each. The remaining 20 percent are for half-day access. Justices deliberations are not public of course. Opinions are published immediately upon release in pdf format at supremecourtus.gov. over, bear __________________ It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

06-23-2003, 10:16 PM	#17 (permalink)
rth9821 Upright	Nice link chavos, thanks

06-24-2003, 07:19 AM	#21 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	it is unconstitutional, i dont want to swear allegiance to anything related to god. earl warren is turning in his grave now __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

06-24-2003, 07:34 AM	#22 (permalink)
geep Insane Location: Imprisoned in Ecotopia	So what if you don't want to. Is this a rule by minority? What if the majority of Americans DO want it? It does nothing to establish a state religion- that would be unconstitutional. The First Amendment says"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," it doesn't say government documents can't mention God. Let Earl Warren, Icon of the Abusers, rock. If the people want to change the wording LET THEM VOTE ON IT. Don't just issue lordly edicts from on high with the false pretense of "interpreting" the Constitution.

06-24-2003, 07:55 AM	#23 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	let's not hijack this thread here. but i'd like to remind you that the purpose of the bill of rights was the protect minorities from majorities. if you look around the system, you'll numerous examples of limiting majorities. __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

06-24-2003, 10:51 AM	#25 (permalink)
geep Insane Location: Imprisoned in Ecotopia	So we're to subjugate ourselves to a tyranny of the minority because it's better? The Bill of Rights was written to protect the individual.

06-24-2003, 11:19 AM	#27 (permalink)
Daval Junkie Location: The True North Strong and Free!	I would kindly ask people to take a deep breath and calm down before they compose replies. Lets not fall into a pissing match. __________________ "It is impossible to obtain a conviction for sodomy from an English jury. Half of them don't believe that it can physically be done, and the other half are doing it." Winston Churchill

06-24-2003, 01:18 PM	#28 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	cuz i'll win such a contest __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal Last edited by The_Dude; 06-25-2003 at 06:58 PM..

06-24-2003, 01:40 PM	#29 (permalink)
geep Insane Location: Imprisoned in Ecotopia	Let me get home from work and grab a few cold ones and I'll challenge that.

06-25-2003, 05:18 PM	#30 (permalink)
weedline Upright Location: Fort Lauderdale Florida	tHE dUDED Why do you keep pissing on your self.

06-25-2003, 05:41 PM	#31 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	i am not gonna respond to that. i'm not going to stoop down to your level __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal Last edited by The_Dude; 06-25-2003 at 06:58 PM..

06-25-2003, 06:11 PM	#32 (permalink)
KillerYoda The Original Emo Gangsta Location: Sixth Floor, Texas School Book Depository	Badass, I get to show this again: __________________ "So you're Chekov, huh? Well, this here's McCoy. Find a Spock, we got us an away team."

06-25-2003, 06:33 PM	#33 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	I'll add my own request to all parties to calm down. Do I have to add that you've all been asked twice now by mods to keep from making this personal? __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

06-25-2003, 07:04 PM	#34 (permalink)
TaLoN Loser Location: MI	it is hard to keep politics from becoming personal. liberals and conservatives will never agree no matter how logical their arguments are. it is like trying to get a gorilla and a rattle snake to play with each other.

06-25-2003, 07:29 PM	#35 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	more like a donkey and an elephant! dry humor, couldnt help it __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

06-25-2003, 09:34 PM	#36 (permalink)
nofnway Insane Location: under the freeway bridge	I still don't understand why it is important to recognize the supreme court justices when most folks don't know justice when they get it...... Maybe if the signed some lucrative black robe contracts....or something.... Don't we all know who plays for the Lakers? Or for the stupid masses who drives #8 or #24 or #20 on the NASCAR circuit? __________________ "Iron rusts with disuse, stagnant water loses its purity and in cold water freezes. Even so does inaction sap the vigor of the mind" Leonardo Da Vinci

06-25-2003, 09:47 PM	#37 (permalink)
magic_hat Tilted Location: The Altered State of Drugachusetts	i dont think its important to know who the justices are but it is iimportant to know somehow that people are getting fair rulings...dont try to prove it to me by shoving a proud looking judge infront of an american flag and have him or her smile or pose as if they are helping everyone by keeping justice. its important to know who the puppets are and who really is running the show.