Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

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

  • Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

    Originally posted by Deutsche Gopher Fan View Post
    Roberts sided with the libs again. Wait for the angry tweets to start.
    Both are cases involving precedent. And both cases Kavanaugh has thrown precedent out. How could Susan Collins have been so wrong????
    **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


    • Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

      He speaks! And he wants to look at the first amendment. *****.

      “Justice Clarence Thomas called for the Supreme Court to reconsider New York Times v. Sullivan, the landmark 1964 ruling interpreting the First Amendment to make it hard for public officials to prevail in libel suits.”

      Comment


      • Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

        Originally posted by Deutsche Gopher Fan View Post
        He speaks! And he wants to look at the first amendment. *****.

        “Justice Clarence Thomas called for the Supreme Court to reconsider New York Times v. Sullivan, the landmark 1964 ruling interpreting the First Amendment to make it hard for public officials to prevail in libel suits.”
        He's siding with Trump's calls of unfair media. It's kind of shocking, if this were 2016.
        "The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." George Orwell, 1984

        "One does not simply walk into Mordor. Its Black Gates are guarded by more than just Orcs. There is evil there that does not sleep, and the Great Eye is ever watchful. It is a barren wasteland, riddled with fire and ash and dust, the very air you breathe is a poisonous fume." Boromir

        "Good news! We have a delivery." Professor Farnsworth

        Comment


        • Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

          Originally posted by Deutsche Gopher Fan View Post
          He speaks! And he wants to look at the first amendment. *****.

          “Justice Clarence Thomas called for the Supreme Court to reconsider New York Times v. Sullivan, the landmark 1964 ruling interpreting the First Amendment to make it hard for public officials to prevail in libel suits.”
          Thomas and Kavanaugh are embarrassments.
          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


          • Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

            Originally posted by Deutsche Gopher Fan View Post
            Roberts sided with the libs again. Wait for the angry tweets to start.
            Interesting.

            In both of the original decisions on the abortion and death penalty cases, Roberts had been in dissent. His actions are not a sign that he has changed his mind; the ruling that the Louisiana law could not go into effect at this time was not a decision on the merits of the law.

            But they do seem to an indication the chief justice believes lower courts must comply with Supreme Court precedents so long as they stand.
            I should f-cking hope so.
            Last edited by Kepler; 02-19-2019, 04:19 PM.
            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


            • Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

              Supreme Court rules unanimously that the Constitution’s prohibition on excessive fines applies to state and local governments. No more extreme asset forfeiture.
              "I went over the facts in my head, and admired how much uglier the situation had just become. Over the years I've learned that ignorance is more than just bliss. It's freaking orgasmic ecstasy".- Harry Dresden, Blood Rites


              Western Michigan Bronco Hockey- 2012 Mason Cup Champions

              Comment


              • Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

                Originally posted by bronconick View Post
                Supreme Court rules unanimously that the Constitution’s prohibition on excessive fines applies to state and local governments. No more extreme asset forfeiture.
                Good

                Comment


                • Originally posted by bronconick View Post
                  Supreme Court rules unanimously that the Constitution’s prohibition on excessive fines applies to state and local governments. No more extreme asset forfeiture.
                  So much for a wealth tax on the super rich
                  a legend and an out of work bum look a lot alike, daddy.

                  Comment


                  • Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

                    Originally posted by mookie1995 View Post
                    So much for a wealth tax on the super rich
                    A tax isn't a fine, mookie. Now slip on these mittens so you don't hurt yourself.
                    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


                    • Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

                      Originally posted by Kepler View Post
                      A tax isn't a fine, mookie. Now slip on these mittens so you don't hurt yourself.
                      tomato, tomatoe to some....

                      haven't you learned that just because you think something is obvious, that doesn't mean everyone else will as well

                      kep really can't see some talking head start up a narrative about the libs fining the wealth cause they are successful? a 'wealth fine'! mookie knows how thomas and kav will vote
                      a legend and an out of work bum look a lot alike, daddy.

                      Comment


                      • Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

                        Originally posted by bronconick View Post
                        Supreme Court rules unanimously that the Constitution’s prohibition on excessive fines applies to state and local governments. No more extreme asset forfeiture.
                        What is considered extreme asset forfeiture? What's the definition being used?
                        Taking a drug dealers stash in a bust is OK, but impounding the car and house that was bought with the proceed of dealing is not?
                        Or is there some other definition that was being reviewed?

                        Edit: Read some of the WaPo story on same. I don't have a problem with taking assets ill-gained of convicted criminals; I do have a hard spot with taking without adjudication and conviction.


                        Could that ruling end up causing caps on civil judgement settlements as some would be deemed 'extreme'?
                        Last edited by The Sicatoka; 02-22-2019, 10:05 AM.
                        The preceding post may contain trigger words and is not safe-space approved. <-- Virtue signaling.

                        North Dakota Hockey:

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by The Sicatoka View Post
                          What is considered extreme asset forfeiture? What's the definition being used?
                          Taking a drug dealers stash in a bust is OK, but impounding the car and house that was bought with the proceed of dealing is not?
                          Or is there some other definition that was being reviewed?

                          Edit: Read some of the WaPo story on same. I don't have a problem with taking assets ill-gained of convicted criminals; I do have a hard spot with taking without adjudication and conviction.


                          Could that ruling end up causing caps on civil judgement settlements as some would be deemed 'extreme'?
                          Constitution only applies to government action. A civil suit between two private persons or entities never involves the bill of rights unless the trial court itself farks up.

                          Edit: or, I suppose, a legislature passes a statute with respect to civil actions that is so biased or patently unfair as to violate the other party's due process rights.

                          But no, the prohibition on excessive fines does not apply to a civil judgement.
                          Last edited by unofan; 02-22-2019, 10:45 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

                            Originally posted by unofan View Post
                            Constitution only applies to government action. A civil suit between two private persons or entities never involves the bill of rights unless the trial court itself farks up.

                            Edit: or, I suppose, a legislature passes a statute with respect to civil actions that is so biased or patently unfair as to violate the other party's due process rights.

                            But no, the prohibition on excessive fines does not apply to a civil judgement.
                            I know I'm going down a rabbit hole here, but, assume civil case and the ruling judge decides to "send a message" and imposes a monster settlement one way. I guess that's still not a 'fine' but a settlement ruling.
                            The preceding post may contain trigger words and is not safe-space approved. <-- Virtue signaling.

                            North Dakota Hockey:

                            Comment


                            • Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

                              Originally posted by The Sicatoka View Post
                              I know I'm going down a rabbit hole here, but, assume civil case and the ruling judge decides to "send a message" and imposes a monster settlement one way. I guess that's still not a 'fine' but a settlement ruling.
                              Appeal. If a jury awards too much, remittitur.

                              Comment


                              • Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

                                Originally posted by burd View Post
                                Appeal. If a jury awards too much, remittitur.
                                And during that appeals process the lawyers keep bookin' fees ...
                                The preceding post may contain trigger words and is not safe-space approved. <-- Virtue signaling.

                                North Dakota Hockey:

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X