Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgiving

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

    An inevitable result of the federal government reaching into more and more things.
    Originally posted by Priceless
    Good to see you're so reasonable.
    Originally posted by ScoobyDoo
    Very well, said.
    Originally posted by Rover
    A fair assessment Bob.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

      Originally posted by Bob Gray View Post
      An inevitable result of the federal government reaching into more and more things.
      What is the inevitable result and what is the causal factor you are talking about (related to the federal government reaching into more and more things)?

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

        Originally posted by burd View Post
        What is the inevitable result and what is the causal factor you are talking about (related to the federal government reaching into more and more things)?
        Did you read the article?
        Originally posted by Priceless
        Good to see you're so reasonable.
        Originally posted by ScoobyDoo
        Very well, said.
        Originally posted by Rover
        A fair assessment Bob.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

          Originally posted by Bob Gray View Post
          An inevitable result of the federal government reaching into more and more things.
          Seems more like a temper tantrum to me.
          Cornell University
          National Champion 1967, 1970
          ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
          Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Bob Gray View Post
            An inevitable result of the federal government reaching into more and more things.
            An by inevitable result you mean, elected judge panders to his base, one again demonstrating why judges should not be elected.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

              Originally posted by Bob Gray View Post
              Did you read the article?
              Yeah, I read about a state judge spouting off in a way that will not be taken seriously. Is that the inevitable result you are despairing about. And is a supreme court decision your example of reaching into more and more things. I know you are never anxious to talk specifics, Bob, but is that what you meant?

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

                Childish poster approves of childish judge--shocking.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

                  Originally posted by Bob Gray View Post
                  An inevitable result of the federal government reaching into more and more things.
                  It's inevitable that judges will decide not to judge and INVITE the SCOTUS to intervene in things like this? That's what the judge is doing.

                  If you want the government to reach more and more into your states lives, then go ahead, don't judge. Let the feds decide for you. But don't get your pants in a bunch that they are intervening when the judge clearly is punting on the decision- someone has to.

                  I don't understand that position.

                  The only part of the law that the SCOTUS overruled was that you can't restrict marriage to a man and a woman, just as long as it's two people. Says nothing about the rest of the rules. If a judge decides that there's more to it than that, and is not willing to judge, well step down and let someone have some confidence that being a Judge is to judge something. And don't complain when you don't judge, and then someone has to intervene.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by alfablue View Post
                    It's inevitable that judges will decide not to judge and INVITE the SCOTUS to intervene in things like this? That's what the judge is doing.

                    If you want the government to reach more and more into your states lives, then go ahead, don't judge. Let the feds decide for you. But don't get your pants in a bunch that they are intervening when the judge clearly is punting on the decision- someone has to.

                    I don't understand that position.

                    The only part of the law that the SCOTUS overruled was that you can't restrict marriage to a man and a woman, just as long as it's two people. Says nothing about the rest of the rules. If a judge decides that there's more to it than that, and is not willing to judge, well step down and let someone have some confidence that being a Judge is to judge something. And don't complain when you don't judge, and then someone has to intervene.
                    It won't go to SCOTUS, Tennessee's appellate courts will handle it fine.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

                      Originally posted by unofan View Post
                      It won't go to SCOTUS, Tennessee's appellate courts will handle it fine.
                      It may not, but that's what the judge is claiming will happen, so he's not judging. His lack of judgment costs a lot of money, because it has to go to an appellate court, in a case that was highly unlikely that it would. So not only is the judge inviting intervention, he's wasting money. So much for trying to get a small government that does not waste money.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

                        I think Bob was referring to the case of SCOTUS v. Murican, 666 Bob 1 (2013). In SCOTUS, the Supreme Court filed suit against Murican, claiming it had the right (and even the responsibility) to reach into Murican's things wherever they could be found. Having original jurisdiction in cases in which itself was the Plaintiff, SCOTUS ruled in favor of itself, granting itself even further powers to not only reach into Murican's things but to fondle them. Justice Scalia authored the opinion, stating that he was still ****ed at the Court's mistaken decision not to reach into Terri Schiavo's things when asked to do so by A Lot of Republicans.

                        Murican has filed a writ of certiorari with a Higher Power. No word on when that decision will come down.
                        Last edited by burd; 09-04-2015, 02:14 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

                          Originally posted by burd View Post
                          I think Bob was referring to the case of SCOTUS v. Murican, 666 Bob 1 (2013). In SCOTUS, the Supreme Court filed suit against Murican, claiming it had the right (and even the responsibility) to reach into Murican's things wherever they could be found. Having original jurisdiction in cases in which itself was the Plaintiff, SCOTUS ruled in favor of itself, granting itself even further powers to not only reach into Murican's things but to fondle them. Justice Scalia authored the opinion, stating that he was still ****ed at the Court's mistaken decision not to reach into Terri Schiavo's things when asked to do so by A Lot of Republicans.

                          Murican has filed a writ of certiorari with a Higher Power. No word on when that decision will come down.
                          Bob may have, but the judge clearly was not.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

                            Originally posted by burd View Post
                            Yeah, I read about a state judge spouting off in a way that will not be taken seriously. Is that the inevitable result you are despairing about. And is a supreme court decision your example of reaching into more and more things. I know you are never anxious to talk specifics, Bob, but is that what you meant?
                            See, if you and the troll brigade weren't so smarmy, I might make more of an effort to respond to you. Wishful thinking.
                            Originally posted by Priceless
                            Good to see you're so reasonable.
                            Originally posted by ScoobyDoo
                            Very well, said.
                            Originally posted by Rover
                            A fair assessment Bob.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

                              Originally posted by Bob Gray View Post
                              An inevitable result of the federal government reaching into more and more things.
                              You really don't see the problem of one State recognizing one marriage and another state not recognizing it?

                              That article was written about a Judge who clearly has been taking too much crack.

                              My favorite last night was the conservative who was telling everyone that pastors, priests, and other clergy were going to be forced to marry gay people if it's against their beliefs. Even when reminded that clergy do not have to marry hetero couples if they don't want to the nut job still continued to fan the flames.

                              Man, this is a stupid issue.
                              Last edited by ScoobyDoo; 09-04-2015, 03:01 PM.
                              **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

                              Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
                              Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by alfablue View Post
                                It's inevitable that judges will decide not to judge and INVITE the SCOTUS to intervene in things like this? That's what the judge is doing.

                                If you want the government to reach more and more into your states lives, then go ahead, don't judge. Let the feds decide for you. But don't get your pants in a bunch that they are intervening when the judge clearly is punting on the decision- someone has to.

                                I don't understand that position.

                                The only part of the law that the SCOTUS overruled was that you can't restrict marriage to a man and a woman, just as long as it's two people. Says nothing about the rest of the rules. If a judge decides that there's more to it than that, and is not willing to judge, well step down and let someone have some confidence that being a Judge is to judge something. And don't complain when you don't judge, and then someone has to intervene.
                                Alfa

                                Did the SCOTUS specify 2 to make a marriage?
                                CCT '77 & '78
                                4 kids
                                5 grandsons (BCA 7/09, CJA 5/14, JDL 8/14, JFL 6/16, PJL 7/18)
                                1 granddaughter (EML 4/18)

                                ”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
                                - Benjamin Franklin

                                Banned from the St. Lawrence University Facebook page - March 2016 (But I got better).

                                I want to live forever. So far, so good.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X