E4 No More

Just to nit-pic...how did you tell the difference between a bullet and mortar shrapnel in the film? They did portray his heroism getting his Marines off the danged beach and fighting the bunker system. Typical Homowood would have him fighting the entire Jap Army with a shovel and a Thompson.

I would classify myself as a "Bible" person, so I don't take your point.

More along the lines of agnosticism rather than atheism. Athiesm is a belief system in and of itself just like theism. The job of SCOTUS is to judge the laws as to their constitutionality; not use their religious beliefs to sway their judgements. I find that too many people use the bible to justify their personal beliefs by taking things out of context, or allowing someone else to do it for them with the end result being the same. If they do that with something written from the devine inspiration from God, what do you expect them to do with something that is not from the devine inspiration of God? No thanks...keep your religion out of it.

Personally, I want religion staying out of SCOTUS.

I did like how they portrayed John Basilone's actions on Iwo although I thought that they understated his actions at "The Canal" which got him the CMH.

The point was that they aren't showing any Japanese atrocities from the Marine perspective. I'm about being fair, and I don't think the producers/directors are being fair at all.

You think the Marines didn't see Japanese atrocities?

Was has pissed me off about the series is their showing of American atrocities and ZERO Japanese atrocities. They'er ortraying the Japanese as hard-fighting, honorable soldiers, and the Marines as murdering thugs. Now, this is not to claim that the fighting wasn't brutal, and that the Marines were above such things as strangling a wouded soldier laying helpless on the ground, but they have showed zero from the other side, and anyone half educated in the Pacific Theatre knows danged well that the Japanese did far worse far more frequently.

Real academics seek truth; not write whatever they THINK will get them a good grade, IMHO.

So you're saying that she's deceitful...even better

Again, a lefty is replacing a lefty. No big deal. It doesn't change the court.

The left is crying because she's not liberal enough.

And what do you do if your voter registration card, bills, and loan documents washed away in the flood?

2 here

If said skank mouthed-off to the judge then that's a different story, IMHO.

I disagree. Authority in this country comes from the people in the form of The Constitution of The United States. Nowhere does it say "except in a court of law" in that document. Or have I gone blind? Just because the courts have seized that authority, and the other branches have allowed them to do so, does not mean that it is legal. It's the way things are rather than the way they are supposed to be.

I've seen my fair share of corrupt courts in two states, Leroy, and I don't find them humorous at all. It's part of the reason that I left the police department. I state my opinion and experiences in this and other forums to provoke thought from those experiences, but I am fully aware that I am powerless to change things. It would take numbers far greater than me alone to affect change, and that's what those in power, (judges in this case), rely upon. The whole system has degenerated into a legal system; not a justice system. By pissing-off a few at a time the courts do not have to worry about large numbers in outrage: therefore, they maintain power.

Judges are to interpret the law; not create it. The latter is the responsibility of the legislative branch. If the states want to amend the constitution giving them the authority to suspend the rights of free speech in the courtroom, then that is what should be done as long as they clearly define what is and is not appropriate. But the court''s ultimate responsibility is to uphold the rights of the accused; not stomp on them. And in this case it wasn't even the accused who got stomped on. The judge should have just ordered her to leave.

I love how people will take a snippet of information - or statements against something - and let their imagination run wild with them. Pointing out that something that is being done is not founded in The Constitution of The United States does not equate to said person being ready to storm the castle walls for change. If I were to believe that you were not just being facetious, you forget about the part where the fox is guarding the hen-house. It would take an awful lot of money and power to change things. Absent that, it would take a large portion of the population to be fed-up with the system and over-throw it. I find it comical how some on this forum, (actually, the country really), decry assaults on the 2nd Amendment but not assaults on the others.

Could you try having a design done over it, or a frosting pattern to cover it?

I certainly agree with that. It's like the fox guarding the henhouse.

I think he's talking about the Constitution of The United States; not Tennessee law.

Part of the reason that it was ruled that way, but judges can do the same thing. I've seen them make up their own laws more than once in my life both when I was and wasn't a police officer.