If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(American Thinker)   The mainstream media should not repeat the spurious factoid that Obamacare is constitutional since only one source (the Supreme Court) came forward to make that claim   (americanthinker.com) divider line 193
    More: Satire, obamacare, U.S. Supreme Court, majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts, Volokh Conspiracy, Commerce Clause, landmark case, Tax Day  
•       •       •

2543 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Nov 2012 at 1:15 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



193 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-24 12:23:59 AM  

John Dewey: Wasn't even a really good troll, was it?


Nope. But the good news is that I never have to be subjected to your bullshiat again.
 
2012-11-24 12:32:55 AM  

Corvus: Funny, I've always said it was a tax. So were is your apology to me?


What's the difference between a tax and a fee? Honest question.
 
2012-11-24 12:41:14 AM  

fusillade762: Corvus: Funny, I've always said it was a tax. So were is your apology to me?

What's the difference between a tax and a fee? Honest question.


Isn't it that a tax is assessed as a percentage of the value of the item in question and a fee is a fixed value attached to the service? Would that be right?
 
2012-11-24 01:08:51 AM  

BronyMedic: This article made my brain hurt.

I don't think I like reading anymore.

[i306.photobucket.com image 500x293]


I usually read the thesis statement and first paragraphs. They don't have much going for them, but at least they don't take long to outline their arguments.
 
2012-11-24 01:18:25 AM  
FTA: Jon N. Hall is a programmer/analyst from Kansas City.

Oh, come on! This is really from The Onion, right? Right?
 
2012-11-24 01:54:18 AM  
Damn Poe's Law, ensuring that I can't take the Satire tag at face value in the Politics tab.
 
2012-11-24 06:42:42 AM  
Yeah... you're allowed to disagree with the Supreme Court. You're not allowed to be offended by other people treating them as authoritative on matters of law, though. As they are quite literally the authority on legal interpretation.
 
2012-11-24 07:42:07 AM  
The good news is that there are 5 SC justices who will roast in Hell after they die for this decision.

I hope Roberts is cast into the seventh circle and spends eternity washing Obama's balls.
 
2012-11-24 08:14:47 AM  
What is the Separation of Powers as defined in US Constitution?

s8.postimage.org
 
2012-11-24 08:24:03 AM  

BronyMedic: This article made my brain hurt.

I don't think I like reading anymore.

[i306.photobucket.com image 500x293]


American Stinker == NGTRTFA.
 
2012-11-24 08:28:23 AM  

shotglasss: The good news is that there are 5 SC justices who will roast in Hell after they die for this decision.

I hope Roberts is cast into the seventh circle and spends eternity washing Obama's balls.


Truly, history's greatest monsters.
 
2012-11-24 08:56:57 AM  

shotglasss: The good news is that there are 5 SC justices who will roast in Hell after they die for this decision.

I hope Roberts is cast into the seventh circle and spends eternity washing Obama's balls.


Yes, because a society that ensures its people are tajen care of is something Jesus would find abhorrent.
 
2012-11-24 09:10:13 AM  

mittromneysdog: shotglasss: The good news is that there are 5 SC justices who will roast in Hell after they die for this decision.

I hope Roberts is cast into the seventh circle and spends eternity washing Obama's balls.

Truly, history's greatest monsters.


Yes they are. Those who allow the masses to be stolen from are truly monsters. The SC5 who have sent the US on a path to death panels and rationed health care (you can read that as some people will be denied care that they would have been able to get before Obamacare) shall burn in hell. Too bad we don't burn people at the stake any more....it would be fun to watch them scream for mercy as they burned their way into Satan's embrace.

/amidoingitrite?
 
2012-11-24 09:11:20 AM  

vygramul: shotglasss: The good news is that there are 5 SC justices who will roast in Hell after they die for this decision.

I hope Roberts is cast into the seventh circle and spends eternity washing Obama's balls.

Yes, because a society that ensures its people are tajen care of is something Jesus would find abhorrent.


Whatever happened to the good old days...you know, when people took care of themselves and didn't expect other people to pay for them to live.
 
2012-11-24 09:47:46 AM  

mcwehrle: thamike:

Yikes., it's like AOL all over again.

pffft.

mIRC.


Yeah you're right, IRC was more for the teatime furries. AOL was vampires and old men having a seat over there.
 
2012-11-24 09:49:24 AM  

shotglasss: vygramul: shotglasss: The good news is that there are 5 SC justices who will roast in Hell after they die for this decision.

I hope Roberts is cast into the seventh circle and spends eternity washing Obama's balls.

Yes, because a society that ensures its people are tajen care of is something Jesus would find abhorrent.

Whatever happened to the good old days...you know, when people took care of themselves and didn't expect other people to pay for them to live.


Not the point. You said people are going to Hell. That's religious. And Matthew 25: 31-46 makes it clear that healing the sick is not just an option that can get you into good graces, but is an obligation - and failure to comply with that obligation results in going to Hell. So if you are a good Christian man, YOU are putting YOURSELF in mortal danger, while Roberts and the other four justices are not - not over THAT ruling.

I won't say you're going to burn in hell next to pedophiles and John Wayne Gacy, because judging someone is something that any Christian realizes is God's domain lest they, themselves, get called on their pompous bullshiat, but you should consider that only the truly selfish and those without any Christian compassion at all share your opinion. Between Jesus and Satan, we know which position they would endorse.
 
2012-11-24 10:07:22 AM  

thenewmissus: meow said the dog: Yes, listen, I do not wish to do the harping on this but I would agree as we first need the opinions of several people before we can do the full reaching of the conclusion of this. The people who are needed by we have the inclusion of:

--Kevin Gutzman (Constitutional Scholar at Western Connecticut State University)
--Honorable Karen Wells Roby (President of Federal Magistrate Judges Association)
--Jesus of Bethlehem (Owner of Jesus G. Gonzalez Painting in Bethlehem, PA)
--Sean Hannity
--Fark Politics Posters

Now listen I do not wish to be the judge of this but can tell to you that I do not see in this the individual mandate of the free thyroid testing which would cure the problem of the obesity in the country of this so I do not believe that this is going to be the Constitutional thing and think that the United States Court of the Supremes but not with Diana Ross is the incorrection.

You are Welcome.

WTF did I just read?


I've got Meow favorited as "WTF am I reading." I recommend you do the same. Meow's got some good stuff, but hasn't posted in awhile.
 
2012-11-24 11:29:16 AM  

Serious Black: The seventh of the Ashwander rules concerning judicial restraint says that even if there is a serious concern raised about the constitutionality of a law, SCOTUS must figure out if any fairly possible construction of the law avoids those concerns. Whether Congress could have passed it is ultimately irrelevant.


Those are guidelines, not rules. They are not binding on anyone, and they are not without their flaws. For example, plenty of scholars (and more than one Justice) believe that the only limits on the Commerce Clause power are political ones. In other words, it's not up to the Court to decide what is or isn't interstate commerce, it's something that the voters should decide at the ballot box. Of course, if that's your theory then it's somewhat important that the political restraints on the use of those powers actually work. It's harder to pass a 'tax' than a 'regulation' purely for political reasons. If you believe that constitutional limits should be set largely by politics and not by justices, that difference should matter to you.
 
2012-11-24 11:31:24 AM  

vygramul: shotglasss: vygramul: shotglasss: The good news is that there are 5 SC justices who will roast in Hell after they die for this decision.

I hope Roberts is cast into the seventh circle and spends eternity washing Obama's balls.

Yes, because a society that ensures its people are tajen care of is something Jesus would find abhorrent.

Whatever happened to the good old days...you know, when people took care of themselves and didn't expect other people to pay for them to live.

Not the point. You said people are going to Hell. That's religious. And Matthew 25: 31-46 makes it clear that healing the sick is not just an option that can get you into good graces, but is an obligation - and failure to comply with that obligation results in going to Hell. So if you are a good Christian man, YOU are putting YOURSELF in mortal danger, while Roberts and the other four justices are not - not over THAT ruling.

I won't say you're going to burn in hell next to pedophiles and John Wayne Gacy, because judging someone is something that any Christian realizes is God's domain lest they, themselves, get called on their pompous bullshiat, but you should consider that only the truly selfish and those without any Christian compassion at all share your opinion. Between Jesus and Satan, we know which position they would endorse.


You think shotglass is a christian.

You're silly.
 
2012-11-24 11:36:56 AM  

Raharu: vygramul: shotglasss: vygramul: shotglasss: The good news is that there are 5 SC justices who will roast in Hell after they die for this decision.

I hope Roberts is cast into the seventh circle and spends eternity washing Obama's balls.

Yes, because a society that ensures its people are tajen care of is something Jesus would find abhorrent.

Whatever happened to the good old days...you know, when people took care of themselves and didn't expect other people to pay for them to live.

Not the point. You said people are going to Hell. That's religious. And Matthew 25: 31-46 makes it clear that healing the sick is not just an option that can get you into good graces, but is an obligation - and failure to comply with that obligation results in going to Hell. So if you are a good Christian man, YOU are putting YOURSELF in mortal danger, while Roberts and the other four justices are not - not over THAT ruling.

I won't say you're going to burn in hell next to pedophiles and John Wayne Gacy, because judging someone is something that any Christian realizes is God's domain lest they, themselves, get called on their pompous bullshiat, but you should consider that only the truly selfish and those without any Christian compassion at all share your opinion. Between Jesus and Satan, we know which position they would endorse.

You think shotglass is a christian.

You're silly.


Good call. I follow Mohammed and Allah.
 
2012-11-24 11:43:34 AM  

shotglasss: The SC5


I loved "Kick Out The Jam".
 
2012-11-24 11:56:56 AM  

Raharu: vygramul: shotglasss: vygramul: shotglasss: The good news is that there are 5 SC justices who will roast in Hell after they die for this decision.

I hope Roberts is cast into the seventh circle and spends eternity washing Obama's balls.

Yes, because a society that ensures its people are tajen care of is something Jesus would find abhorrent.

Whatever happened to the good old days...you know, when people took care of themselves and didn't expect other people to pay for them to live.

Not the point. You said people are going to Hell. That's religious. And Matthew 25: 31-46 makes it clear that healing the sick is not just an option that can get you into good graces, but is an obligation - and failure to comply with that obligation results in going to Hell. So if you are a good Christian man, YOU are putting YOURSELF in mortal danger, while Roberts and the other four justices are not - not over THAT ruling.

I won't say you're going to burn in hell next to pedophiles and John Wayne Gacy, because judging someone is something that any Christian realizes is God's domain lest they, themselves, get called on their pompous bullshiat, but you should consider that only the truly selfish and those without any Christian compassion at all share your opinion. Between Jesus and Satan, we know which position they would endorse.

You think shotglass is a christian.

You're silly.


He brought up Hell and people burning in it. I was actually cognizant of this likelihood, especially once I smacked the notion around a bit. I
 
2012-11-24 11:57:40 AM  

shotglasss: Raharu: vygramul: shotglasss: vygramul: shotglasss: The good news is that there are 5 SC justices who will roast in Hell after they die for this decision.

I hope Roberts is cast into the seventh circle and spends eternity washing Obama's balls.

Yes, because a society that ensures its people are tajen care of is something Jesus would find abhorrent.

Whatever happened to the good old days...you know, when people took care of themselves and didn't expect other people to pay for them to live.

Not the point. You said people are going to Hell. That's religious. And Matthew 25: 31-46 makes it clear that healing the sick is not just an option that can get you into good graces, but is an obligation - and failure to comply with that obligation results in going to Hell. So if you are a good Christian man, YOU are putting YOURSELF in mortal danger, while Roberts and the other four justices are not - not over THAT ruling.

I won't say you're going to burn in hell next to pedophiles and John Wayne Gacy, because judging someone is something that any Christian realizes is God's domain lest they, themselves, get called on their pompous bullshiat, but you should consider that only the truly selfish and those without any Christian compassion at all share your opinion. Between Jesus and Satan, we know which position they would endorse.

You think shotglass is a christian.

You're silly.

Good call. I follow Mohammed and Allah.


And that's not any better. In fact, the obligations to your brothers is stronger, not weaker.
 
2012-11-24 02:18:54 PM  
American Stinker: James Thurber, Steven Colbert and HL Mencken wrapped up into one.

Oh wait...
 
2012-11-24 02:41:38 PM  
John Dewey: There is nothing in the Constitution giving the Supreme Court power to judge the constitutionality of laws. The Supreme Court gave the Supreme Court that power. Circular reasoning at its best.

Yes here:

Article III.

Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

...

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.


The Constitution is Law, the Supreme court is the final arbitrator of US law, that's what the judiciary is. The constitution does in fact give them power to judge cases based on the Constitution or the Constitution would not be law.
You can't saw something is law but the say courts can rule based on it. It would be useless.


Hey, man, it's just a piece of paper !
 
2012-11-24 06:57:21 PM  

shotglasss: vygramul: shotglasss: The good news is that there are 5 SC justices who will roast in Hell after they die for this decision.

I hope Roberts is cast into the seventh circle and spends eternity washing Obama's balls.

Yes, because a society that ensures its people are tajen care of is something Jesus would find abhorrent.

Whatever happened to the good old days...you know, when people took care of themselves and didn't expect other people to pay for them to live.


I'm sorry. You have failed the Turing Test.

Please delete yourself.
 
2012-11-24 07:05:18 PM  

shotglasss: Whatever happened to the good old days...you know, when people took care of themselves and didn't expect other people to pay for them to live.


Except when they couldn't, and we let them die in the streets. You know, the good old days!
 
2012-11-24 07:39:02 PM  
shotglasss: Whatever happened to the good old days...you know, when people took care of themselves and didn't expect other people to pay for them to live.

Says some guy who's too young to remember Ducktales.
 
2012-11-25 04:16:28 AM  

Talondel: Serious Black: The seventh of the Ashwander rules concerning judicial restraint says that even if there is a serious concern raised about the constitutionality of a law, SCOTUS must figure out if any fairly possible construction of the law avoids those concerns. Whether Congress could have passed it is ultimately irrelevant.

Those are guidelines, not rules. They are not binding on anyone, and they are not without their flaws.


Jesus titty-farking Christ. I know they're not binding rules. I simply called them rules because that's what thy're known as in popular parlance. If you would rather I call them guidelines to satisfy your need to be a pedantic assclown, fine. They're "guidelines."

For example, plenty of scholars (and more than one Justice) believe that the only limits on the Commerce Clause power are political ones. In other words, it's not up to the Court to decide what is or isn't interstate commerce, it's something that the voters should decide at the ballot box. Of course, if that's your theory then it's somewhat important that the political restraints on the use of those powers actually work. It's harder to pass a 'tax' than a 'regulation' purely for political reasons. If you believe that constitutional limits should be set largely by politics and not by justices, that difference should matter to you.

I don't know anyone who actually thinks this is true, and if there really are people who think it is, they're stupid as a box of rocks. The Constitution is famous for its brevity. If the point was to give Congress the power to make all commercial regulations that the membership could pass, then why doesn't the Commerce Clause just say Congress has the power "to regulate commerce"? That's a hell of a lot more simple than saying Congress has the power to regulate commerce in three different areas. Or if the point was to let Congress to just do whatever the hell they wanted, why doesn't Article I, Section 1, just vest all legislative power in Congress? It is plainly obvious to me that the powers of Congress, including the Commerce Clause, have justiciable limits.

As for what those limits are when it comes specifically to the Interstate Commerce Clause, I think Judge Laurence Silberman's decision in Seven-Sky v. Holder is the best place to look for what constitutes an actual regulation, and the majority opinion in US v. Lopez is the best place to look for what constitutes interstate commerce that can be regulated. Once any action of Congress fits into those two categories, being a regulation and touching on a matter of itnerstate commerce, then the Interstate Commerce Clause empowers it.
 
2012-11-25 05:28:53 AM  

jayhawk88: John Dewey: There is nothing in the Constitution giving the Supreme Court power to judge the constitutionality of laws. The Supreme Court gave the Supreme Court that power. Circular reasoning at its best.

Also if you are tried in a court that doesn't display the American Flag with gold trim, the case is invalid and you're free to go.


Enlighten me, I missed Civics that day...(I'm serious)
 
2012-11-25 07:12:26 AM  

thamike: shotglasss: Whatever happened to the good old days...you know, when people took care of themselves and didn't expect other people to pay for them to live.

Says some guy who's too young to remember Ducktales.


LOL at you...I remember the Carter years because I had to live through them, along with the gas lines, staggeringly high inflation and unemployment, and the misery index. How about you?
 
2012-11-25 07:14:20 AM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: shotglasss: vygramul: shotglasss: The good news is that there are 5 SC justices who will roast in Hell after they die for this decision.

I hope Roberts is cast into the seventh circle and spends eternity washing Obama's balls.

Yes, because a society that ensures its people are tajen care of is something Jesus would find abhorrent.

Whatever happened to the good old days...you know, when people took care of themselves and didn't expect other people to pay for them to live.

I'm sorry. You have failed the Turing Test.

Please delete yourself.


Bad news for you little fella...you aren't nearly intelligent enough to grade ME on ANYTHING. Please perform a sexual impossibility on yourself.
 
2012-11-25 09:29:11 AM  

armoredbulldozer: jayhawk88: John Dewey: There is nothing in the Constitution giving the Supreme Court power to judge the constitutionality of laws. The Supreme Court gave the Supreme Court that power. Circular reasoning at its best.

Also if you are tried in a court that doesn't display the American Flag with gold trim, the case is invalid and you're free to go.

Enlighten me, I missed Civics that day...(I'm serious)


You never took Civics.
 
2012-11-25 09:51:48 AM  

armoredbulldozer: jayhawk88: John Dewey: There is nothing in the Constitution giving the Supreme Court power to judge the constitutionality of laws. The Supreme Court gave the Supreme Court that power. Circular reasoning at its best.

Also if you are tried in a court that doesn't display the American Flag with gold trim, the case is invalid and you're free to go.

Enlighten me, I missed Civics that day...(I'm serious)


It's some bullshiat that idiots who see symbolism as important use to argue we're under martial law, and such flags denote an "admiralty court" which lacks jurisdiction over civillians for whatever idiot logic they use. They promote codes (in thos case, flag code) above law (usually tax law) and convince themselves they hold moral high ground.
 
2012-11-25 11:59:52 AM  

shotglasss: Serious Post on Serious Thread: shotglasss: vygramul: shotglasss: The good news is that there are 5 SC justices who will roast in Hell after they die for this decision.

I hope Roberts is cast into the seventh circle and spends eternity washing Obama's balls.

Yes, because a society that ensures its people are tajen care of is something Jesus would find abhorrent.

Whatever happened to the good old days...you know, when people took care of themselves and didn't expect other people to pay for them to live.

I'm sorry. You have failed the Turing Test.

Please delete yourself.

Bad news for you little fella...you aren't nearly intelligent enough to grade ME on ANYTHING. Please perform a sexual impossibility on yourself.


Uh, that would be: "Please perform an impossible sexual act on yourself". You have failed at failing the Turing test. Again. And also the intelligence test.

Congrats. You are a stupiderpbot.

/delete yourself
 
2012-11-25 05:59:07 PM  

thamike: armoredbulldozer: jayhawk88: John Dewey: There is nothing in the Constitution giving the Supreme Court power to judge the constitutionality of laws. The Supreme Court gave the Supreme Court that power. Circular reasoning at its best.

Also if you are tried in a court that doesn't display the American Flag with gold trim, the case is invalid and you're free to go.

Enlighten me, I missed Civics that day...(I'm serious)

You never took Civics.


Not you again. How would you know...?
 
2012-11-25 09:38:15 PM  

Serious Black: I don't know anyone who actually thinks this is true, and if there really are people who think it is, they're stupid as a box of rocks.


Have some respect, that's Justice Breyer you're talking about. The guy who voted with the minority in every single case that actually limited Congress' authority under the commerce clause (Lopez, Morrison, NFIB v. Sebelius) and who argued in NFIB v. Sebelius that there isn't really anything the federal government can't force you to buy so long as Congress thinks it's a good idea ("I would have thought that your answer to [the question], can the government . . . require you to buy cell phones be, yes, of course, they could? . . . and the same with the computers.")

Serious Black: Once any action of Congress fits into those two categories, being a regulation and touching on a matter of itnerstate commerce, then the Interstate Commerce Clause empowers it.


That is not even close to what Lopez says. If it was, the regulation at issue in Lopez would have been upheld instead of struck down, since having an effective educational system clearly has an effect on interstate commerce and the regulation at issue in Lopez was intended to produce a more effective educational system. A regulation has to do more than just 'touch' interstate commerce to be upheld. Violence against women also has an effect on interstate commerce, and that was struck down as well in Morrison.
 
2012-11-25 10:59:40 PM  

armoredbulldozer: thamike: armoredbulldozer: jayhawk88: John Dewey: There is nothing in the Constitution giving the Supreme Court power to judge the constitutionality of laws. The Supreme Court gave the Supreme Court that power. Circular reasoning at its best.

Also if you are tried in a court that doesn't display the American Flag with gold trim, the case is invalid and you're free to go.

Enlighten me, I missed Civics that day...(I'm serious)

You never took Civics.

Not you again. How would you know...?


Are you standing up for yourself, as a man,or is this a trick question?
 
2012-11-25 11:49:03 PM  

thamike: armoredbulldozer: thamike: armoredbulldozer: jayhawk88: John Dewey: There is nothing in the Constitution giving the Supreme Court power to judge the constitutionality of laws. The Supreme Court gave the Supreme Court that power. Circular reasoning at its best.

Also if you are tried in a court that doesn't display the American Flag with gold trim, the case is invalid and you're free to go.

Enlighten me, I missed Civics that day...(I'm serious)

You never took Civics.

Not you again. How would you know...?

Are you standing up for yourself, as a man,or is this a trick question?


Yes, I am. Is there a problem?
 
2012-11-26 01:30:23 AM  

Talondel: Serious Black: I don't know anyone who actually thinks this is true, and if there really are people who think it is, they're stupid as a box of rocks.

Have some respect, that's Justice Breyer you're talking about. The guy who voted with the minority in every single case that actually limited Congress' authority under the commerce clause (Lopez, Morrison, NFIB v. Sebelius) and who argued in NFIB v. Sebelius that there isn't really anything the federal government can't force you to buy so long as Congress thinks it's a good idea ("I would have thought that your answer to [the question], can the government . . . require you to buy cell phones be, yes, of course, they could? . . . and the same with the computers.")


And who said I had to like Justice Breyer and his legal philosophy? While I may think the Commerce Clause power is very expansive, I think the majority opinion got it right on both US v. Lopez and US v. Morrison. And at the same time, i think they got it wrong on NFIB v. Sebelius.

Serious Black: Once any action of Congress fits into those two categories, being a regulation and touching on a matter of itnerstate commerce, then the Interstate Commerce Clause empowers it.

That is not even close to what Lopez says. If it was, the regulation at issue in Lopez would have been upheld instead of struck down, since having an effective educational system clearly has an effect on interstate commerce and the regulation at issue in Lopez was intended to produce a more effective educational system. A regulation has to do more than just 'touch' interstate commerce to be upheld. Violence against women also has an effect on interstate commerce, and that was struck down as well in Morrison.


Substantial effect or relation, touch, what's the difference? Oh yeah, you're excessively pedantic. I should have known better.

I must say, even though I brought it up myself, the US v. Lopez example is funny to use in interstate commerce issues. In the wake of the decsion, Congress rewrote the law to say that the gun involved must have been involved in or affected by interstate commerce. Since virtually every single gun that has ever been shot in this country meets that description, it changed nothing about the execution law but made it patently constitutional since it took it from being tested by the third prong to the second prong of the Lopez test. Hurray for pedantry saving the Gun-Free School Zones Act! I guess it's okay for you to be pedantic after all.
 
2012-11-26 05:21:31 AM  

armoredbulldozer: thamike: armoredbulldozer: thamike: armoredbulldozer: jayhawk88: John Dewey: There is nothing in the Constitution giving the Supreme Court power to judge the constitutionality of laws. The Supreme Court gave the Supreme Court that power. Circular reasoning at its best.

Also if you are tried in a court that doesn't display the American Flag with gold trim, the case is invalid and you're free to go.

Enlighten me, I missed Civics that day...(I'm serious)

You never took Civics.

Not you again. How would you know...?

Are you standing up for yourself, as a man,or is this a trick question?

Yes, I am. Is there a problem?


Just making sure you weren't kidding the last time. Keep your helmet on, sport.
 
2012-11-26 08:11:05 AM  

thamike: armoredbulldozer: thamike: armoredbulldozer: thamike: armoredbulldozer: jayhawk88: John Dewey: There is nothing in the Constitution giving the Supreme Court power to judge the constitutionality of laws. The Supreme Court gave the Supreme Court that power. Circular reasoning at its best.

Also if you are tried in a court that doesn't display the American Flag with gold trim, the case is invalid and you're free to go.

Enlighten me, I missed Civics that day...(I'm serious)

You never took Civics.

Not you again. How would you know...?

Are you standing up for yourself, as a man,or is this a trick question?

Yes, I am. Is there a problem?

Just making sure you weren't kidding the last time. Keep your helmet on, sport.


It is instinct to stick up for yourself there sport. Your Dad should have pulled out..
 
2012-11-26 05:36:58 PM  

armoredbulldozer: thamike: armoredbulldozer: thamike: armoredbulldozer: thamike: armoredbulldozer: jayhawk88: John Dewey: There is nothing in the Constitution giving the Supreme Court power to judge the constitutionality of laws. The Supreme Court gave the Supreme Court that power. Circular reasoning at its best.

Also if you are tried in a court that doesn't display the American Flag with gold trim, the case is invalid and you're free to go.

Enlighten me, I missed Civics that day...(I'm serious)

You never took Civics.

Not you again. How would you know...?

Are you standing up for yourself, as a man,or is this a trick question?

Yes, I am. Is there a problem?

Just making sure you weren't kidding the last time. Keep your helmet on, sport.

It is instinct to stick up for yourself there sport. Your Dad should have pulled out..


He did. It's not his fault your mom is a gaper.
 
Displayed 43 of 193 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report