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 The Sicatoka View Post
    And during that appeals process the lawyers keep bookin' fees ...
    You're the victim of the excessive judgment: do you want the right to appeal?

    Comment


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

      I think everyone who has XM access should listen to Smerconish's hour on asset forfeitures from yesterday. It's out of control. There were several cases where the cops had a drug dog sniff a wad of cash and they confiscated the cash without any other charges other than something like a speeding ticket. No drugs found, no paraphernalia. Just cash. That's just two of the cases he reviewed.

      I've always hated the use of drug dogs because there is no way for them to be reliable. They're easily trained and can give false positives.
      Second, I don't like asset seizures. I think it's an unconstitutional money grab by the cops.
      Code:
      As of 9/21/10:         As of 9/13/10:
      College Hockey 6       College Football 0
      BTHC 4                 WCHA FC:  1
      Originally posted by SanTropez
      May your paint thinner run dry and the fleas of a thousand camels infest your dead deer.
      Originally posted by bigblue_dl
      I don't even know how to classify magic vagina smoke babies..
      Originally posted by Kepler
      When the giraffes start building radio telescopes they can join too.
      He's probably going to be a superstar but that man has more baggage than North West

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by burd View Post
        You're the victim of the excessive judgment: do you want the right to appeal?
        I'd rather not the excessive judgement to begin with.
        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 dxmnkd316 View Post
          Second, I don't like asset seizures. I think it's an unconstitutional money grab by the cops.
          The lack of adjudication and guilty finding, yet taking, is disturbing. No. It's wrong.
          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'd rather not the excessive judgement to begin with.
            As would we all, but you raised the hypothetical.

            Comment


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

              Originally posted by burd View Post
              As would we all, but you raised the hypothetical.
              Touche.
              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
                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.
                Civil judgments awarded by a finder of fact are already reviewed on appeal under a standard of review that is well set out in law.

                But go ahead and keep trying to argue with the lawyers on the board that you've found Pandora's box.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by unofan View Post
                  Civil judgments awarded by a finder of fact are already reviewed on appeal under a standard of review that is well set out in law.

                  But go ahead and keep trying to argue with the lawyers on the board that you've found Pandora's box.
                  U-A-A!!!Go!Go!GreenandGold!
                  Applejack Tells You How UAA Is Doing...
                  I spell Failure with UAF

                  Originally posted by UAFIceAngel
                  But let's be real...There are 40 some other teams and only two alaskan teams...the day one of us wins something big will be the day I transfer to UAA
                  Originally posted by Doyle Woody
                  Best sign by a visting Seawolf fan Friday went to a young man who held up a piece of white poster board that read: "YOU CAN'T SPELL FAILURE WITHOUT UAF."

                  Comment


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

                    Sounds like the SCOTUS won’t intervene in the bumpstock ban.
                    Code:
                    As of 9/21/10:         As of 9/13/10:
                    College Hockey 6       College Football 0
                    BTHC 4                 WCHA FC:  1
                    Originally posted by SanTropez
                    May your paint thinner run dry and the fleas of a thousand camels infest your dead deer.
                    Originally posted by bigblue_dl
                    I don't even know how to classify magic vagina smoke babies..
                    Originally posted by Kepler
                    When the giraffes start building radio telescopes they can join too.
                    He's probably going to be a superstar but that man has more baggage than North West

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by unofan View Post
                      Civil judgments awarded by a finder of fact are already reviewed on appeal under a standard of review that is well set out in law.

                      But go ahead and keep trying to argue with the lawyers on the board that you've found Pandora's box.
                      no arguing with lawyers?
                      does that apply to lawyers arguing with other lawyers?
                      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

                        About time these enviro-nazis be put in their place. https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-...tana-property/

                        Comment


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

                          This won't be horrible at all.

                          The Supreme Court has agreed to take up a set of high-profile cases involving gay rights and the rights of transgender people in the workplace.

                          The justices announced Monday that they will consider whether existing federal law banning employment-related sex discrimination also prohibits discriminating against individuals on the basis of sexual orientation or because they are transgender.

                          The Supreme Court said it will hear a pair of cases in which federal appeals courts split over whether gay and lesbian employees are protected by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

                          The justices also accepted another case involving a transgender funeral home employee, saying they will consider whether transgender status is protected in itself or whether it falls within existing law against “sex stereotyping.”
                          It's not a question of whether they will be regressive but how regressive. I can imagine Kavanaugh gleefully pounding his beer on the bench while fulminating against "those queers."

                          Perhaps they'll revive Dred Scott and rule that transgenders aren't human beings.
                          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


                          • Originally posted by Kepler View Post
                            This won't be horrible at all.



                            It's not a question of whether they will be regressive but how regressive. I can imagine Kavanaugh gleefully pounding his beer on the bench while fulminating against "those queers."

                            Perhaps they'll revive Dred Scott and rule that transgenders aren't human beings.
                            It's not as bad as it looks. It's not a constitutional question. It's simply statutory interpretation. So when the Ds control the government next, they can fix any bad ruling by an act of Congress.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by unofan View Post
                              It's not as bad as it looks. It's not a constitutional question. It's simply statutory interpretation. So when the Ds control the government next, they can fix any bad ruling by an act of Congress.
                              There are also states that have broader protections than the federal statute.
                              That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by Kepler View Post
                                This won't be horrible at all.



                                It's not a question of whether they will be regressive but how regressive. I can imagine Kavanaugh gleefully pounding his beer on the bench while fulminating against "those queers."

                                Perhaps they'll revive Dred Scott and rule that transgenders aren't human beings.
                                This case is going to say a lot about John Roberts. Hopefully he'll be on the right side of history.
                                Legally drunk???? If its "legal", what's the ------- problem?!? - George Carlin

                                Ever notice how everybody who drives slower than you is an idiot, and everybody who drives faster is a maniac? - George Carlin

                                "I've never seen so much reason and bullsh*t contained in ONE MAN."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X