Results 41 to 50 of 74
-
07-03-2007 #41Originally Posted by White_Male_Canada
Originally Posted by Quinn
You see, want wit, I know that you copied and pasted much of your initial post in this thread’s first incarnation from part of a post on a blogger’s site (http://www.jayreding.com/). The problem is that you did so without reading his entire post, let alone the initial decision itself. That’s why you didn’t even initially understand the limited scope of the case. You were clearly afraid that I would discover this fact after I called you on not reading or understanding the decision – which is why you edited/changed that initial post immediately afterward (I wasn’t the only poster who called you one it either) You can deny it all you want, but we know the truth and are used to it. After all, this isn’t the only time you’ve been caught doing this sort of thing, is it (multiple other posters have called you out on it in the past)...
2) Your grasp of constitutional law and the US legal system is so underwhelming that you previously argued in a conversation, concerning the US Supreme Court’s 2003 decision on McCain-Feingold (BCRA), that said court doesn’t even have the final authority it just exercised.
Originally Posted by White_Prevaricating_Poltroon
The Supreme Court’s own website:
While Congress has ultimate authority to modify or set aside any such rules that are not constitutionally required, e.g., Palermo v. United States, 360 U.S. 343, 345—348, it may not supersede this Court’s decisions interpreting and applying the Constitution see, e.g., City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 517—521.
Former Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Patrick Leahy
In matters of constitutional interpretation, the Court’s rulings are the supreme law of the land[/b], whether they are decided unanimously or by a single vote.
Former Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Arlen Specter
. . . it is fundamental that Congress not legislate contradiction to a constitutional interpretation of the Supreme Court.
Congressional Research Service Testimony before a House of Representatives subcommittee.
According to a unanimous ruling by the Court in the Little Rock crisis, Marbury ''declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution.''Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (195. That principle was reasserted by the Court in the reapportionment case of Baker v. Carr (1962): [b]Deciding whether a matter has in any measure been committed by the Constitution to another branch of government, or whether action of that branch exceeds whatever authority has been committed, is itself a delicate exercise in constitutional interpretation, and a responsibility of this Court as ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.'', Seven years later, in the exclusion case of Adam Clayton Powell, the Court again referred to itself as the ''ultimate interpreter'' of the Constitution., Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 549 (1969).
Chief Justice John Marshall
It is, emphatically, the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.
3) Hell, you’re so unbelievably ignorant of this nation’s laws that you previously argued the use of transfer pricing by corporations to evade taxes isn’t illegal.???
Originally Posted by White_Male_Canada
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/...162359,00.html
Face the facts, cupcake, my cat is more qualified to discuss – let alone interpret – legal matters than you. Fuck, you’re dumb.
-Quinn
Life is essentially one long Benny Hill skit punctuated by the occasional Anne Frank moment.
-
07-03-2007 #42
- Join Date
- Dec 2004
- Location
- Out there somewhere...
- Posts
- 2,810
These are just very few examples of a myriad....
Last edited by White_Male_Canada on Mon Jul 02, 2007 11:34 pm; edited 3 times in totalLast edited by White_Male_Canada on Sat Jun 30, 2007 1:05 am; edited 4 times in totalLast edited by White_Male_Canada on Sat Jun 30, 2007 1:07 am; edited 5 times in totalLast edited by White_Male_Canada on Sun Jul 01, 2007 4:32 am; edited 1 time in total
And why does he never tell us what changes he made, as some posters, including myself, always do? Is it because he doesn't want us to see that his original post was even more full of shit? Is it because he can never tell the truth?
I don't think asking such questions makes me a kook. It merely makes me inquisitive. But for giving me reason to come up with them, I would not like to say what it makes WMC.
Navin R. Johnson: You mean I'm going to stay this color??
Mother: I'd love you if you were the color of a baboon's ass.
-
07-03-2007 #43Like I said previously, I'm going to push this until we eventually both get banned by the mods. – at which point the P&R forum can hold the type of debates HA used to have regularly
[/b]
This ruling deals with only a small part of McCain-Feingold (BCRA), hence the words “as applied to the advertisements at issue in these cases.” [u]The court's decision, however, has no effect on the farther-reaching components of McCain-Feingold (BCRA)
Fucking moron, at issue was Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. That section made it illegal to refer by name to a candidate for federal office in an ad run 30 days before a primary election, or 60 days before a general election.
Now it is legal!
What don`t you understand retard !?
I understand you desperately want to reinterpret your way out of this, but the above point was used to refute the implication you made that the decision entailed more than it actually did, as if it supported your long-held claims that McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional and "shredded the 1st."
But when it comes to defining what speech qualifies as the functional equivalent of express advocacy subject to such a ban—the issue we do have to decide—we give the benefit of the doubt to speech, not censorship. The First Amendment’s command that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech” demands at least that. The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is affirmed. It is so ordered…. I join the principal opinion because I conclude (a) that §203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, 2 U. S. C. §441b(b)(2) (2000 ed., Supp. IV), as applied, cannot constitutionally ban … because §203 is unconstitutional as applied to the advertisements before us, it is unnecessary to go further and decide whether §203 is unconstitutional on its face."Opinion of ROBERTS, C. J
You still haven't even come close to explaining your contradictory positions on which branch of government has the ultimate authority to determine constitutionality in this matter.
within the legal community is that the coming review is based upon this criteria and that it will actually strengthen McCain-Feingold before it’s over...
You`re as easy as a two dollar anencephalic crack whore
http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=22273
When people abandon the truth, they don’t believe in nothing, they believe in anything.
-
07-03-2007 #44Originally Posted by LG
Told you a zillion times, i type extemporaneously and reserve the right to the final reply when i`m the author of the topic.
Now lets compare extemporaneous thought with the villageidiot who never has practiced critical thought:
within the legal community is that the coming review is based upon this criteria and that it will actually strengthen McCain-Feingold before it’s over...Like I said previously, I'm going to push this until we eventually both get banned by the mods. – at which point the P&R forum can hold the type of debates HA used to have regularly
When people abandon the truth, they don’t believe in nothing, they believe in anything.
-
07-03-2007 #45Originally Posted by LG
Originally Posted by Felicia KattOriginally Posted by EcstaticOriginally Posted by Trish
-Quinn
Life is essentially one long Benny Hill skit punctuated by the occasional Anne Frank moment.
-
07-03-2007 #46
1) Once again:
Originally Posted by Quinn
You see, want wit, I know that you copied and pasted much of your initial post in this thread’s first incarnation from part of a post on a blogger’s site (http://www.jayreding.com/). The problem is that you did so without reading his entire post, let alone the initial decision itself. That’s why you didn’t even initially understand the limited scope of the case. You were clearly afraid that I would discover this fact after I called you on not reading or understanding the decision – which is why you edited/changed that initial post immediately afterward (I wasn’t the only poster who called you one it either) You can deny it all you want, but we know the truth and are used to it. After all, this isn’t the only time you’ve been caught doing this sort of thing, is it (multiple other posters have called you out on it in the past)...
2) Your grasp of constitutional law and the US legal system is so underwhelming that you previously argued in a conversation, concerning the US Supreme Court’s 2003 decision on McCain-Feingold (BCRA), that said court doesn’t even have the final authority it just exercised.
Originally Posted by White_Prevaricating_Poltroon
The Supreme Court’s own website:
While Congress has ultimate authority to modify or set aside any such rules that are not constitutionally required, e.g., Palermo v. United States, 360 U.S. 343, 345—348, it may not supersede this Court’s decisions interpreting and applying the Constitution see, e.g., City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 517—521.
Former Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Patrick Leahy
In matters of constitutional interpretation, the Court’s rulings are the supreme law of the land[/b], whether they are decided unanimously or by a single vote.
Former Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Arlen Specter
. . . it is fundamental that Congress not legislate contradiction to a constitutional interpretation of the Supreme Court.
Congressional Research Service Testimony before a House of Representatives subcommittee.
According to a unanimous ruling by the Court in the Little Rock crisis, Marbury ''declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution.''Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (195. That principle was reasserted by the Court in the reapportionment case of Baker v. Carr (1962): [b]Deciding whether a matter has in any measure been committed by the Constitution to another branch of government, or whether action of that branch exceeds whatever authority has been committed, is itself a delicate exercise in constitutional interpretation, and a responsibility of this Court as ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.'', Seven years later, in the exclusion case of Adam Clayton Powell, the Court again referred to itself as the ''ultimate interpreter'' of the Constitution., Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 549 (1969).
Chief Justice John Marshall
It is, emphatically, the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.
3) Hell, you’re so unbelievably ignorant of this nation’s laws that you previously argued the use of transfer pricing by corporations to evade taxes isn’t illegal.???
Originally Posted by White_Male_Canada
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/...162359,00.html
Face the facts, cupcake, my cat is more qualified to discuss – let alone interpret – legal matters than you. Fuck, you’re dumb.
-Quinn
Life is essentially one long Benny Hill skit punctuated by the occasional Anne Frank moment.
-
07-03-2007 #47… my cat is more qualified to discuss – let alone interpret – legal matters than you. Fuck, you’re dumb.
This from the VillageIdiots anencephalic pee-brain as conclusive proof he/she hasn`t the foggiest clue as to the law:
within the legal community is that the coming review is based upon this criteria and that it will actually strengthen McCain-Feingold before it’s over...
Like I said previously, I'm going to push this until we eventually both get banned by the mods. – at which point the P&R forum can hold the type of debates HA used to have regularly
[/b]
... he's completely reversed himself from that initial post (in this thread's previous incarnation) that tried to present this USSC's ruling as a far broader ruling than it was...
This ruling deals with only a small part of McCain-Feingold (BCRA), hence the words “as applied to the advertisements at issue in these cases.” [u]The court's decision, however, has no effect on the farther-reaching components of McCain-Feingold (BCRA)
Fucking idiot. The Court was not there to deal with the parts of McCain/Feingold that were irrelevant to the first amendment, such as personal spending thresholds for Senate candidates, Restrictions on State & Local Party Soft Money Spending,consolidated reporting provisions,etc,
Fucking moron, at issue was Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. That section made it illegal to refer by name to a candidate for federal office in an ad run 30 days before a primary election, or 60 days before a general election.
Now it is legal!
What don`t you understand !?
I understand you desperately want to reinterpret your way out of this, but the above point was used to refute the implication you made that the decision entailed more than it actually did, as if it supported your long-held claims that McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional and "shredded the 1st."
But when it comes to defining what speech qualifies as the functional equivalent of express advocacy subject to such a ban—the issue we do have to decide—we give the benefit of the doubt to speech, not censorship. The First Amendment’s command that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech” demands at least that. The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is affirmed. It is so ordered…. I join the principal opinion because I conclude (a) that §203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, 2 U. S. C. §441b(b)(2) (2000 ed., Supp. IV), as applied, cannot constitutionally ban … because §203 is unconstitutional as applied to the advertisements before us, it is unnecessary to go further and decide whether §203 is unconstitutional on its face."Opinion of ROBERTS, C. J
You see, I know that you copied and pasted much of your initial post from part of a post on a blogger’s site (http://www.jayreding.com/).
within the legal community is that the coming review is based upon this criteria and that it will actually strengthen McCain-Feingold before it’s over...Too easy... Just like when you folded during that little test of wills the other night.
http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=22273
When people abandon the truth, they don’t believe in nothing, they believe in anything.
-
07-03-2007 #48
1) Once again:
Originally Posted by Quinn
You see, want wit, I know that you copied and pasted much of your initial post in this thread’s first incarnation from part of a post on a blogger’s site (http://www.jayreding.com/). The problem is that you did so without reading his entire post, let alone the initial decision itself. That’s why you didn’t even initially understand the limited scope of the case. You were clearly afraid that I would discover this fact after I called you on not reading or understanding the decision – which is why you edited that initial post immediately afterward. Svenson and Rogers also called you on it. You can deny it all you want, but we know the truth and are used to it. After all, this isn’t the only time you’ve been caught doing this sort of thing, is it (numerous respected posters have called you out for this sort of thing in the past):
Originally Posted by Felicia KattOriginally Posted by EcstaticOriginally Posted by Trish
Originally Posted by White_Prevaricating_Poltroon
The Supreme Court’s own website:
While Congress has ultimate authority to modify or set aside any such rules that are not constitutionally required, e.g., Palermo v. United States, 360 U.S. 343, 345—348, it may not supersede this Court’s decisions interpreting and applying the Constitution see, e.g., City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 517—521.
Former Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Patrick Leahy
In matters of constitutional interpretation, the Court’s rulings are the supreme law of the land[/b], whether they are decided unanimously or by a single vote.
Former Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Arlen Specter
. . . it is fundamental that Congress not legislate contradiction to a constitutional interpretation of the Supreme Court.
Congressional Research Service Testimony before a House of Representatives subcommittee.
According to a unanimous ruling by the Court in the Little Rock crisis, Marbury ''declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution.''Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (195. That principle was reasserted by the Court in the reapportionment case of Baker v. Carr (1962): [b]Deciding whether a matter has in any measure been committed by the Constitution to another branch of government, or whether action of that branch exceeds whatever authority has been committed, is itself a delicate exercise in constitutional interpretation, and a responsibility of this Court as ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.'', Seven years later, in the exclusion case of Adam Clayton Powell, the Court again referred to itself as the ''ultimate interpreter'' of the Constitution., Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 549 (1969).
Chief Justice John Marshall
It is, emphatically, the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.
3) Hell, you’re so unbelievably ignorant of this nation’s laws that you previously argued the use of transfer pricing by corporations to evade taxes isn’t illegal.???
Originally Posted by White_Male_Canada
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/...162359,00.html
Face the facts, cupcake, my cat is more qualified to discuss – let alone interpret – legal matters than you. Fuck, you’re dumb.
-Quinn
Life is essentially one long Benny Hill skit punctuated by the occasional Anne Frank moment.
-
07-03-2007 #49Like I said previously, I'm going to push this until we eventually both get banned by the mods. – at which point the P&R forum can hold the type of debates HA used to have regularly
[/b]
This ruling deals with only a small part of McCain-Feingold (BCRA), hence the words “as applied to the advertisements at issue in these cases.” [u]The court's decision, however, has no effect on the farther-reaching components of McCain-Feingold (BCRA)
Fucking moron, at issue was Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. That section made it illegal to refer by name to a candidate for federal office in an ad run 30 days before a primary election, or 60 days before a general election.
Now it is legal!
What don`t you understand retard !?
I understand you desperately want to reinterpret your way out of this, but the above point was used to refute the implication you made that the decision entailed more than it actually did, as if it supported your long-held claims that McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional and "shredded the 1st."
But when it comes to defining what speech qualifies as the functional equivalent of express advocacy subject to such a ban—the issue we do have to decide—we give the benefit of the doubt to speech, not censorship. The First Amendment’s command that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech” demands at least that. The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is affirmed. It is so ordered…. I join the principal opinion because I conclude (a) that §203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, 2 U. S. C. §441b(b)(2) (2000 ed., Supp. IV), as applied, cannot constitutionally ban … because §203 is unconstitutional as applied to the advertisements before us, it is unnecessary to go further and decide whether §203 is unconstitutional on its face."Opinion of ROBERTS, C. J
You see, I know that you copied and pasted much of your initial post from part of a post on a blogger’s site (http://www.jayreding.com/).
You still haven't even come close to explaining your contradictory positions on which branch of government has the ultimate authority to determine constitutionality in this matter.
within the legal community is that the coming review is based upon this criteria and that it will actually strengthen McCain-Feingold before it’s over...Too easy... Just like when you folded during that little test of wills the other night.
http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=22273
When people abandon the truth, they don’t believe in nothing, they believe in anything.
-
07-03-2007 #50
1) Once again:
Originally Posted by Quinn
You see, want wit, I know that you copied and pasted much of your initial post in this thread’s first incarnation from part of a post on a blogger’s site (http://www.jayreding.com/). The problem is that you did so without reading his entire post, let alone the initial decision itself. That’s why you didn’t even initially understand the limited scope of the case. You were clearly afraid that I would discover this fact after I called you on not reading or understanding the decision – which is why you edited that initial post immediately afterward. Svenson and Rogers also called you on it. You can deny it all you want, but we know the truth and are used to it. After all, this isn’t the only time you’ve been caught doing this sort of thing, is it (numerous respected posters have called you out for this sort of thing in the past):
Originally Posted by Felicia KattOriginally Posted by EcstaticOriginally Posted by Trish
Originally Posted by White_Prevaricating_Poltroon
The Supreme Court’s own website:
While Congress has ultimate authority to modify or set aside any such rules that are not constitutionally required, e.g., Palermo v. United States, 360 U.S. 343, 345—348, it may not supersede this Court’s decisions interpreting and applying the Constitution see, e.g., City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 517—521.
Former Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Patrick Leahy
In matters of constitutional interpretation, the Court’s rulings are the supreme law of the land[/b], whether they are decided unanimously or by a single vote.
Former Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Arlen Specter
. . . it is fundamental that Congress not legislate contradiction to a constitutional interpretation of the Supreme Court.
Congressional Research Service Testimony before a House of Representatives subcommittee.
According to a unanimous ruling by the Court in the Little Rock crisis, Marbury ''declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution.''Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (195. That principle was reasserted by the Court in the reapportionment case of Baker v. Carr (1962): [b]Deciding whether a matter has in any measure been committed by the Constitution to another branch of government, or whether action of that branch exceeds whatever authority has been committed, is itself a delicate exercise in constitutional interpretation, and a responsibility of this Court as ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.'', Seven years later, in the exclusion case of Adam Clayton Powell, the Court again referred to itself as the ''ultimate interpreter'' of the Constitution., Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 549 (1969).
Chief Justice John Marshall
It is, emphatically, the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.
3) Hell, you’re so unbelievably ignorant of this nation’s laws that you previously argued the use of transfer pricing by corporations to evade taxes isn’t illegal.???
Originally Posted by White_Male_Canada
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/...162359,00.html
Face the facts, cupcake, my cat is more qualified to discuss – let alone interpret – legal matters than you. Fuck, you’re dumb.
-Quinn
Originally Posted by Felicia KattOriginally Posted by EcstaticOriginally Posted by Trish
Life is essentially one long Benny Hill skit punctuated by the occasional Anne Frank moment.