:stop :stop :stop :stop :stop :stop :stop :stop
It's so nice that you have chosen to continue to kick a dead horse.
Printable View
:stop :stop :stop :stop :stop :stop :stop :stop
It's so nice that you have chosen to continue to kick a dead horse.
It is indeed dead. Dead the second I posted the subject. No one can deny the reality of the decision. Simple math dictates 5 is more than 4, no matter how badly delusional defenders of McCainFeingold are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oli
Their spamming/hi-jacking won`t change those facts. 8)
:screwy
1) Once again:
I understand you desperately want to rmisrepresent your way out of this, but the above point was used to refute the implication you made in the now deleted thread 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." It’s okay, stupid. I know the reason you did it.Quote:
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 immedietly 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.
To bad for you the US Supreme Court and Congress’s relevant bodies disagree:Quote:
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 (1958). 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.???
Here’s but one of many examples of a corporation being prosecuted for something your uneducated stated isn't illegal:Quote:
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
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,Quote:
… blurted out that the “Supreme Court – the ultimate authority on such matters – upheld the constitutionality of McCain-Feingold’s key provisions.”
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 !?
The USSC is NOT the ultimate authority on such matters,Congress is. You are oblivious to the fact that in certain matters Congress has the ultimate authority. . . .
Now the "Fiesta Resistance".
This ignoramous takes a shellacing and learns a lesson in regards to the USSC, how it is the end point of litigation and how Article III applies, making Congress the ultimate authority. The point flies so far over this Village Idiots head it still doesn`t get it !
To top it off this useless self embarrassing retard then continues on in it`s complete ignorant bliss and states with complete sincerity:
Contrast the ignorant villageidiots belief with reality :Quote:
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...
“Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech” demands at least that.[/b] 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… 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
The rest of your ignorant BS is irrelevant to the Topic and has already been dispatched with aplomb.
quinn:Quote:
PREDICTION:
The villageidiot continues the disruptive pattern of spamming/hi-jacking:
Quote:
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
1) Once again:
I understand you desperately want to rmisrepresent your way out of this, but the above point was used to refute the implication you made in the now deleted thread 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." It’s okay, stupid. I know the reason you did it.Quote:
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.
To bad for you the US Supreme Court and Congress’s relevant bodies disagree:Quote:
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 (1958). 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.???
Here’s but one of many examples of a corporation being prosecuted for something your uneducated stated isn't illegal:Quote:
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
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,Quote:
… blurted out that the “Supreme Court – the ultimate authority on such matters – upheld the constitutionality of McCain-Feingold’s key provisions.”
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 !?
The USSC is NOT the ultimate authority on such matters,Congress is. You are oblivious to the fact that in certain matters Congress has the ultimate authority. . . .
Now the "Fiesta Resistance".
This ignoramous takes a shellacing and learns a lesson in regards to the USSC, how it is the end point of litigation and how Article III applies, making Congress the ultimate authority. The point flies so far over this Village Idiots head it still doesn`t get it !
To top it off this useless self embarrassing retard then continues on in it`s complete ignorant bliss and states with complete sincerity:
Contrast the ignorant villageidiots belief with reality :Quote:
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...
“Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech” demands at least that.[/b] 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… 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
The rest of your ignorant BS is irrelevant to the Topic and has already been dispatched with aplomb.
quinn:Quote:
PREDICTION:
The villageidiot continues the disruptive pattern of spamming/hi-jacking:
Quote:
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
1) Once again:
I understand you desperately want to rmisrepresent your way out of this, but the above point was used to refute the implication you made in the now deleted thread 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." It’s okay, stupid. I know the reason you did it.Quote:
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.
To bad for you the US Supreme Court and Congress’s relevant bodies disagree:Quote:
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 (1958). 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.???
Here’s but one of many examples of a corporation being prosecuted for something your uneducated stated isn't illegal:Quote:
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
Here let me stoop to your encephalitic level junior,
5, is more than 4 . You lose. 8)
ATTN: MODS:
QUINN AKA THE VILLAGEIDIOT IS HI-JACKING AND SPAMMING.
THIS LUNATIC HAS ADMITTED SO AND WISHES TO BE BANNED.
GRANT THIS INDIVIDUAL IT`S WISH:
Quote:
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
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,Quote:
… blurted out that the “Supreme Court – the ultimate authority on such matters – upheld the constitutionality of McCain-Feingold’s key provisions.”
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 !?
The USSC is NOT the ultimate authority on such matters,Congress is. You are oblivious to the fact that in certain matters Congress has the ultimate authority. . . .
Now the "Fiesta Resistance".
This ignoramous takes a shellacing and learns a lesson in regards to the USSC, how it is the end point of litigation and how Article III applies, making Congress the ultimate authority. The point flies so far over this Village Idiots head it still doesn`t get it !
To top it off this useless self embarrassing retard then continues on in it`s complete ignorant bliss and states with complete sincerity:
Contrast the ignorant villageidiots belief with reality :Quote:
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...
“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… 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
The rest of your ignorant BS is irrelevant to the Topic and has already been dispatched with aplomb.
quinn:Quote:
PREDICTION:
The villageidiot continues the disruptive pattern of spamming/hi-jacking:
Quote:
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
Is there a point to this thread, or are you just trying to fan the flames before they die out, WMC? Whatever your excuse, it's pissing me off.
We've been through all this and there is no agreement. Flaming is pointless. Spamming is pointless. It's a non-issue now, we've read so much about it that nobody gives a fuck anymore.
Let's move on.