RE: Should Bush Run For 3rd Term?

RE: Should Bush Run For 3rd Term? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

luckydog1 -> RE: Should Bush Run For 3rd Term? (4/12/2007 11:27:53 AM)
This sentance explains your confusion. "Having the right to petition(sue) without redress (winning) is no right at all. You must not understand that in every court case there is a winner and loser, it has to be so. Every completed court case in history has a loser, only one side can win. You do not have the right to win any court case you feel like bringing, I guess that confuses you.

Real0ne -> RE: Should Bush Run For 3rd Term? (4/15/2007 7:35:35 AM)
So you think the only legitimate judge is appointed by the supreme court. Suing for the right to sue and win?!! That is a rediculous and laughable thing for you to say, no court would ever entertain hearing a case like that! again you make no sense. Suffice to say since the court is hearing the case it obvioulsy it is "not" about suing for the right to win as you want to spin it. Only one side can win? Again "not so", in fact many times decisions split between both sides of a dispute awarding wins to both thus both have losses as well. Again Blacks sixth ed 2. By the constitution of the United States the right "to petition the government for a redress of grievances," is secured to the people. Amendm. Art. 1.

luckydog1 -> RE: Should Bush Run For 3rd Term? (4/15/2007 11:25:47 AM)
Only one side can win? Again "not so", in fact many times decisions split between both sides of a dispute awarding wins to both thus both have losses as well. Can you name one? By the constitution of the United States the right "to petition the government for a redress of grievances," is secured to the people. Amendm. Art. 1. Right , but this does not garunteee, you will get your redress. You have the right to ask, not the right to recieve. I never once said that lower judges were appointed by the Supreme court. You are making stuff up again. All judges in America can be reviewed by the Supreme court.

Real0ne -> RE: Should Bush Run For 3rd Term? (4/15/2007 9:28:29 PM)
more like thousands you gotta be kidding right? nice bait and switch, we were talking about the suit wtp filed, which my statement referred to and you inserted (winning) in too. now you want to switch it to the raw definition? Nah lets just get back on point. Exactly what do you think they are not (winning) that they are suing for? Exactly what do you think that suit is about that you think they are suing for the right to win? Good then we can agree that mahoney "can" be reviewed by the supreme court at any time.

Satyr6406 -> RE: Should Bush Run For 3rd Term? (5/6/2007 2:28:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ExSteelAgain As far as the law, a president could serve more than 8 years today if he took office as Vice President after a President died or left office for some reason. He could serve out that term and then be elected for two more terms. As long as the term that the VEEP served out was less than half the term. Also, my understanding was that the question was should President Bush run, again. Since you scenario is not in operation, I stand by my original comment HE is precluded by law from doing so. Peace and comfort, Michael

farglebargle -> RE: Should Bush Run For 3rd Term? (5/6/2007 4:57:30 AM)
He is precluded by his RECORD OF FAILURE. Worst. President. Ever.

Musicmystery -> RE: Should Bush Run For 3rd Term? (5/6/2007 10:03:59 AM)
Eroding citizens' rights, then invoking war powers... Many a military dictatorship has started similarly to this. Tim

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 5 [6]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.015625