Effects of long term percocet use. No prescription percocet. Patriots percocet addiction buy. Percocet. Percocet dosages. How long is percocet in your system….

Ultram. Ultram extended release. Genric name for ultram….

Oxycodone vs hydrocodone pain killer. Is oxycodone or hydrocodone stronger. What is oxycodone. Oxycodone without prescription. Oxycodone extraction iv. Oxycodone online. Oxycodone. 80 my oxycodone….

Why is this important? Well, because of the nature of survivor benefits that Social Security benefits have in place once a spouse passes away. It is one thing for a private contract to pay out in the event of qualifying events but it is quite another thing for public social safety nets to pay out when that system is alreay financially strained. I cannot even imagine the strange and taboo legal marriages that may form just to get access to the public Social Security money once some widowed Social Security collecting person finds out that they're terminally ill – why not marry all of your grandchilren and have them collect and share the entitlement that would be coming every month for ten years or more…at least until the children are ready to 'remarry'.

Think that's sick and twisted? Yeah, so do I, but you know someone with no decency will try it just to collect cash for many years.

The insistence by the gay community that those who oppose the redefinition of marriage are motivated by hate is a straw man, I just wish someone would hurry up and knock it down.

Yes, when a law is deemed unconstitutional, the law is struck, or it must be re-written. Congress cannot deem a law constitutional, but it can shape a law in some pretty egregious ways.

Dred Scott, IMO, was more than poor legal reasoning. To me, it speaks volumes about the importance of diversity on the court. Walk a mile in someone's shoes, and all that.

Look at what has already transpired during the oral arguments in the Savana Redding case. A bunch of old men are asking what the big deal is by strip searching a 13-year-old girl… and finding nothing, to boot.

They can't even seem to imagine having a daughter go through the experience.

They're probably playing the 'good guys' as they don't want to get married and make heteros feel warm an fuzzy the same way (from that article a few weeks ago) a man who can't cheat wife because no other woman would have him support monogamy and faithfulness.

First off,

"any decision by the court can essentially overturned by congress just by crafting a new law."

No they can't do this for just ANY decision. Sometimes the SC strikes down particular provisions of a law, sometimes they declare laws void for vagueness, sometimes they issue an opinion with qualifications for the legislature to use in rewriting.

This is not true for most cases, and it's been established for more than a century that when the SCOTUS declares a law unconstitutional, the law is void(barring of course a constitutional amendment or the SCOTUS revisiting the decision.)

As far as Dred Scott and the various decisions of the Warren Court, the problem is not that the decisions had purportedly far-reaching social effects.

The problem with those decisions is the piss-poor legal reasoning used, and the fact that the courts were making new laws instead of reviewing the work of the elected legislatures.

Also, Warren did not

slammed home civil rights once and for all.

You've completely ignored Truman's executive order desegregating the armed forces, for example, and every one of the various Civil Rights Acts passed by Congress, not to mention the 24th Amendment to the Constitution. All of these were more essential, and less legally questionable, to the civil rights movement, than any court decision on the matter has ever been.

Actually, I have some gay friends who think it's not at all the same thing as a heterosexual marriage and should be treated and respected as its own entity. One thinks it's exactly like heterosexual marriage and should be treated and viewed by society and the law exactly the same as traditional marriage. And I know a few who are anti gay marriage gay people. Anecdotal for sure, but I found the range of opinions to be interesting.

Besides, there is the matter of family law and the contract of marriage which the courts uphold. The religious anti-gay marriage crowd confuses the legal issue by arguing from their almost irrelevant religious beliefs. In fact, family law is based on traditional societal ties and our understanding and experience with those relationships. It's true that our understanding of those relationships and our experiences changes over time family law changes as a result.

I didn't think you were attacking a teen mother, just misinterpreting what she said. I didn't know she was on an abstinence tour, but abstinence is certainly preferable at least to the very conservative in the Republican party. So, I agree with you there. And let's be honest here – no matter how cool, liberal and "with-it" parents may think they are, they really would all prefer for their teenagers to abstain if they had their "druthers".

I don't really understand the fascination with the Palins – particularly Bristol. From what little I know, she doesn't exactly strike me as a kid who makes particularly good choices or is particularly interesting.

A mindless, reflexive statement, as though spoken by a parrot.

They are all activist judges on the Supreme Court. The easy cases have precedent and stand, but many cases that make it to the Supreme Court have no precedent and require interpretation. It is why there are 9 judges, and not 1. Duh!

Lincoln said something to the effect that if our existence depended on the absolute and fixed decisions of the Supreme Court, then liberty is out of reach.

Was Taney an activist judge when he decided that the court had no authority to prohibit slavery, and that a slave, being property, could never become a citizen or petition the court? Doesn't that collide with the notion of liberty?

Warren was an 'activist' judge and slammed home civil rights once and for all.

You show me a judge who is not an 'activist', and I'll show you a useless lump wasting a valuable chair. Clarence Thomas is such a judge. I'm not sure the guy has written a single paper since being appointed.

My main reason for viewing the 'activist judge' meme as a slogan for fools is because any decision by the court can essentially overturned by congress just by crafting a new law. In fact, because congress is so useless now, the Supreme Court has had to specifically prod congress to craft new laws. The dissenting opinion in 5-4 splits sometimes calls on congress to enact specific laws to get around an injustice left to stand on a technicality. Lily Ledbetter is a recent example of that.

Th government does not require people to be married to have children. That particular intervention is carried out via birth certification.

Even if a child is not certified and not a product of marriage, the government still maintains itself as the defacto protector of the child.