All Comments on 'U.S. Constitution Lawsuit'

Monetary is probably the word that you were looking for.

is astounding. Bit I'll limit myself to only a few points.

I admit I have never heard of "Monterey spending." Apparently Google hasn't either, so I will assume you meant "monetary." Please correct me if I'm wrong and explain the term.

Two justices cannot, by themselves, vote on anything. If a ruling has the power of law then there were at least three others culpable in any alleged "crime." If you are going to use a vague and broad definition of "legislate" then you should have nine defendants in your suit. But I suspect that would be dissonant with your worldview.

"Based on their [JR and SA] direct testimonies [regarding the role of a SCJ], they violated the oath of office to which they have been granted."

That is not how oaths work. It may mean they are hypocritical but the oath is a set statement and their opinions are irrelevant to judging whether or not it has been violated. (It would, however, affect judgment of whether they FELT they were violating it. But that (intent) is a separate issue.

You state:

"The US electoral process is based on the preponderance of collective ideas & opinions in conveyance that adheres to the sprit & will of the majority of its constituents. Circumventing that legal and constitutional process is both criminal & civil."

Let's assume that's true (and ignore you misuse of "civil"). When did you have an epiphany and join a TEA party? An when can I expect your complementary suit against the 111th US Congress for gross negligence of duty by (a) not passing a federal budget (which is its primary duty) and (b) passing a healthcare bill that is in violation of individual rights (and outside any of its stated duties) as well as against "the spirit & will of the people" by any reasonable measure?

Finally, at what point can I expect you to call for the abolition of political parties and political action groups, which are in fact corporations created solely to pool resources for political purposes? And how is the right to vote enhanced by having only the extremely wealthy capable of funding their own campaigns while citizen's groups, unions, and political parties are severely limited in their ability to spend money?

Of course, since you are simply playing at being serious it would be unfair for us to expect consistency or fine distinction. May I be forgiven, though, for expecting competent grammar and structure on a site devoted to writing?

Humor? Satire?? I suppose that's to explain the inability to spell

If your going to rant about your inconsequential local problems please do so in a local forum, preferably your local bar.

The rest of the world isn't governed by the US Supreme Court and isn't bothered

that coherence and literacy, and an elementary course in what used to be called "civics", wouldn't cure.

Did you not once consult a dictionary, or at least use spell check? Monterey? Did you mean 'Monetary', by any chance? Considering how long it takes me to get posted, due to small spelling errors, I'm shocked that this ever saw the light of day.

considering you can barely speak English, and you are in dire need of an editor.

Monterey is a town in California

monetary means dealing with money