ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
We would have saves ourselves a lot of trouble if we would have let them secede.
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
- Thread starter unofan
- Start date
- Status
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
God, yes. I guess there's no Constitutional provision for ejecting them?
God, yes. I guess there's no Constitutional provision for ejecting them?
P
Priceless
Guest
I think we should call Rick Perry's bluff and let Texas secede. Something tells me he'd backpedal faster than Carmelo Anthony.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
http://www.salon.com/2014/08/14/you...k_perrys_rebranding_is_full_of_self_delusion/
http://www.salon.com/2014/08/14/you...k_perrys_rebranding_is_full_of_self_delusion/
unofan
Well-known member
When Indiana acts as an employer, surely it can just as it can require it to withhold federal income taxes for its employees.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
Unless TX deports everybody with brown skin on principle, it's going to be purple fairly soon anyway.
Unless TX deports everybody with brown skin on principle, it's going to be purple fairly soon anyway.
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
One God I can understand. But one wife? It is not civilized. It is not generous!
http://fox13now.com/2014/08/27/federal-judge-strikes-down-portion-of-utahs-ban-on-polygamy/
One God I can understand. But one wife? It is not civilized. It is not generous!
http://fox13now.com/2014/08/27/federal-judge-strikes-down-portion-of-utahs-ban-on-polygamy/
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
I could be missing something, but this seems like a disconnect between the report and the event. The judge seems to have invalidated a law that makes it illegal to shack up with more than one woman. The parts of the statute that talk about marriage he explicitly preserved. Even granting that UT and northern AZ are crawling with polygamous FLDS cults, how does this on the facts say anything about polygamy?
I could be missing something, but this seems like a disconnect between the report and the event. The judge seems to have invalidated a law that makes it illegal to shack up with more than one woman. The parts of the statute that talk about marriage he explicitly preserved. Even granting that UT and northern AZ are crawling with polygamous FLDS cults, how does this on the facts say anything about polygamy?
Last edited:
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
Background.
Posner would have made an "interesting" SCOTUS justice. He and Scalia would have been something to see.
Background.
Posner would have made an "interesting" SCOTUS justice. He and Scalia would have been something to see.
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
It's all mush at this point. Utah is fighting a losing battle.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
It's been all down hill since the Genevans kicked out Calvin.
It's been all down hill since the Genevans kicked out Calvin.
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
But wasn't there also some interesting moments when the panel went after the challengers about polygamy, marriage to children, animals, etc? It sounds like it would have been a fun one to listen to.
I saw an article about that. Sounds like the attorneys for the states had a fun time explaining why marriage is better if it's only hetero.
But wasn't there also some interesting moments when the panel went after the challengers about polygamy, marriage to children, animals, etc? It sounds like it would have been a fun one to listen to.
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
You sir are entitled to your opinion. And some interesting opinions you express.
FadeToBlack&Gold
No Quarter for Fascists
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
"The year was 2014. The Liberal Plague ravaged the continent, it was the hour of the infamous, Auto de fé where, for public amusement, Christians and Bible believers would be tortured in a carnival like atmosphere; and it was guided by the most fearful specter to ever sit in judgment over good and evil. The Grand Inquisitor, Barackobama."
"The year was 2014. The Liberal Plague ravaged the continent, it was the hour of the infamous, Auto de fé where, for public amusement, Christians and Bible believers would be tortured in a carnival like atmosphere; and it was guided by the most fearful specter to ever sit in judgment over good and evil. The Grand Inquisitor, Barackobama."
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
This is actually the plot of half the Christian movies that play at our local multiplex. "And the money kept pouring in..."
This is actually the plot of half the Christian movies that play at our local multiplex. "And the money kept pouring in..."
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
Why is it not a conflict of interest for a legislator who also is an attorney to be actively practicing law?
If I say to a legislator, "I'll give you $50,000 to vote on a law that favors my company," I am committing bribery, no?
Yet if I say to a legislator who also is an attorney actively practicing law, when there is a vote coming up on a bill that will affect my company, "I'm going to give your law firm a $250,000 retainer to represent me" this action is perfectly legal? In substance the two transactions are identical, are they not?
Why is it not a conflict of interest for a legislator who also is an attorney to be actively practicing law?
If I say to a legislator, "I'll give you $50,000 to vote on a law that favors my company," I am committing bribery, no?
Yet if I say to a legislator who also is an attorney actively practicing law, when there is a vote coming up on a bill that will affect my company, "I'm going to give your law firm a $250,000 retainer to represent me" this action is perfectly legal? In substance the two transactions are identical, are they not?
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
Same reason campaign contributions aren't illegal bribes. The people who make the laws are the people who derive the benefit.
Same reason campaign contributions aren't illegal bribes. The people who make the laws are the people who derive the benefit.
unofan
Well-known member
Yes, because clearly nothing like that ever happens with non-attorney legislators...
Besides, you're all in favor of money = speech; you've defended the Citizen's United ruling repeatedly. It's a little late for you to be criticizing anything regarding campaign financing.
- Status