Put Press On Koury Rezoning
Dear Editor,
I think you might want to provide more coverage of the Koury rezoning request for the 23-acre parcel at Cone and Cleburne.
Their request to change from R-3 to RM-26 is a great idea for Koury but devastating to the mature neighborhoods surrounding the property. Koury certainly has every right to develop their property, but it should be consistent and complementary to its neighbors.
Please put the power of the press to use.
Thank You,
Pete Pearce
Kudos To Dems
Dear Editor,
I hate having to give the (National Socialist) Democrat Party kudos, but in this case I have to.
They are doing a pretty good job of hijacking the court packing issue that the Republicans are justifiably using against Bunker Joe. They are working hard to deflect an issue that is dogging him and has been made worse when he was asked if the people deserve an answer and he said, “No.”
To put it another way, we peons shouldn’t worry about things that could potentially have a major impact on our lives. Creepy Uncle Joe knows best.
In case you haven’t noticed, they are starting to accuse President Trump and Republicans in the past of “packing” the court with their choices. Ignore the fact that everything they did was open and above board, not to mention legal. The ‘rats have never picked judges based on their willingness to legislate from the bench and overturn the will of the people. Not!
I have heard one ‘rat operative, I mean elected official, start a new talking point by saying President Trump stated he was basing his judicial selections based on their stated willingness to vote against Roe v. Wade and to get rid of Obamacare. He even said the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee have said the same thing.
Really? Really? I know I have heard him say he was going to nominate originalists, judges who follow the Constitution as written, not as they want it to read. But I don’t know of any time he said he would nominate based on how they would rule. That’s a (National Socialist) Democrat thing.
The ‘rats are so beside themselves over this appointment that Bunker Joe is trying to tell people that what’s happening is unconstitutional. With Creepy Uncle Joe manhandling women and girls, the Wicked Witch of the West trying rewrite the Constitution on her own to suit her whims without bothering to use the lawful way of doing it, and Kamala Harris busy setting up a pool on how many months before Uncle Joe is officially declared unfit for office and she gets to takes over, it’s shaping up to be a very interesting election.
I’ve said it before, hunker down and ammo up. Things have the potential for getting wild.
Alan Marshall
Judging Judges
Dear Editor,
I believe that judges should be required to answer any questions about ”the law” or their legal opinions during confirmation hearings. Anyone who doesn’t answer questions should not be confirmed. I want to know where they stand on executions, abortions, doctor assisted suicide and all other legal matters. I want to know if they think that marijuana should be legal or that tobacco should be illegal.
Judges have way too much power, and their power should be limited. Judges can take away your life, liberty, property and end your pursuit of happiness. They can take away your house, pets and even your children. They can put you behind bars or in a straight jacket. They can take away your life.
We need term limits for judges. No judge, general or politician should be appointed to a government job for life. Didn’t someone in the past say, “Judge not lest ye be judged”?
Chuck Mann
You might have missed it when you were digging your shelter fearing Hillary’s win, but here is what Donald Trump said in 2016 when asked if he wants the court, and justices he appoints to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision: “Well, if that would happen, because I am pro-life, and I will be appointing pro-life judges, I would think that that will go back to the individual states. If we put another two or perhaps three justice on, that’s really what’s going to be. That’ll happen automatically, in my opinion, because I am putting pro-life justices on the court. I will say this: It will go back to the states, and the states will then make a determination.”
That says pretty clearly to me that part of his nominating requirements is that they are pro-life and would by all indicators overturn Roe v. Wade.
If that’s not enough, when asked if women that get abortions should be punished he said “The answer is that there has to be some form of punishment.”
Or perhaps when asked specifically about Amy Coney Barrett and Roe v. Wade he said this: “So, I didn’t think it was for me to discuss that with her [Barrett], because it’s something she’s going to be ruling on. But if you look at her past actions and rulings, I guess she maybe would be in the category that you mention, I don’t know. I can say this, that she is certainly conservative in her views and her rulings and we’ll have to see how that all works out.”
But you know, it’s all a lie, because in 1999 he was 100% pro-choice. He only cares about himself.
But let’s get to your real point. You’re scared because you know if the GOP forces her onto the Supreme Court, the Dems will respond accordingly if they control the House, Senate, and Presidency. You’re not worried, you’re scared and all you know how to do is shoot a gun.
There’s actually a lot of work in the sciences that would support having more Supreme Court Justices, period. It’s called the central limit theory and basically says that if you have a few more people in your sample (Justices, in this case) they will more accurately represent the entire population they are supposed to represent – the American people. It isn’t a perfect analogy, but the foundation still applies. It’s similar to trusting a single poll or the average of a bunch of polls. The average of many polls is more likely to give an accurate read on the people they polled than any individual poll.
Not sure where you ever received a civics class, but one thing is for sure, you comment of “if you have a few more people in your sample (Justices, in this case) they will more accurately represent the entire population they are supposed to represent” shows what a misguided SJW you are to think people should be judged by anything other then the written laws.
The Supreme Court, in fact all judges on all courts are not there to “represent the entire population”. They are there to read and apply the law AS WRITTEN, not as they feel it should be. Lady Justice wears a blindfold as a representation of the application of the law. Justice is supposed to be blind. It is not supposed to represent anybody.
I like to think that the people passing judgement represent the justice for all the people. I agree they should judge based on how a law is written, but as you made clear in your latest servitude to Q, you don’t understand that words have definition and meaning and they don’t always perfectly align.
So let’s look at some ambiguously written legal statements that I’m sure you’d love to apply to the exact definition as wrtten:
1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. — Alan suggests judges should be okay with enslaving someone that smokes a joint.
2. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. — Alan suggests that in 1869, only white people should have had their rights to vote protected and then magically the next year other people’s vote counts and is important.
3. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. — Alan suggests that in 1918, women were not worthy of voting but then suddenly they were more important in 1919.
The bottom line is that laws conflict. Laws are often flawed. Justices have to distinguish between definition and meaning, something Alan Marshall can’t seem to do.
MW, neither can you! Only your opinion counts and you’re a communist socialist dirtbag so…. carry on Alan! Why don’t you head to China Mw? With your intelligence and beliefs you could be running the place within a year! Please just answer the question, why don’t you just leave?
Sincerely, your Captain
Alan, I have to admit that you are right! I’m a socialist pig and the left are stealing this election. We communist led by Hillary and. Barack Obama with the help of the FBI tried to steal it in 2016 but careless idiots (Leftwing operatives) couldn’t stay off their phones or each other and the plan got out to the public and even worse… Donald Trump! We really don’t care who knows! We are going to take over your capitalist flawed nation and fundamentally change it forever like Barack said we would. This country gloats about it’s prosperity and flaunts it’s success while other countries struggle and that’s not fair. Everyone should have an equal share. No more wealthy citizens only equal ones. We are also going to FLOOD not pack the courts with like minded comrades so that we can control the house, senate and White House forever. WE ARE GOING TO TAKE THIS ELECTION… by hook or by crook… okay both. I mean we are socialist commies lol rotf!!!