Lucky...

Are people without college degrees all stupid? If you have a college degree, are you superior to those who are without? No, but I have a far better understanding of the legal ssytem than I did before I sat there for 100's of hours listening to lawyers and other legal professionsl, PhD's, etc. So essentially, I get you guys w/o an education and I understand a lot of what lawyers know, certainly not at that level yet. Put it this way, I've pro per'd my own civil case against law firms and won in arbitration, I've drafted all kinds of motions, sat thru (post) depositions, argued issues at the trial court (usually called the Superior Court). I was a process server for 9 years. I've sat thru months of criminal trials for fun. I'm that legal nerd who never got to law school; IOW's I do it for the love of it - I actually find it interesting to read cases. To answer your question, laypeople are ignorant; stupidity would have to be measured by a person's inability to learn. Most educated people, educated on the law, will not waste their time with self-riteous laypeople full of vim and vinegar as it's futile trying to teach them about the real application of the law. I can teach someone about civil and to a degree criminal procedure, but not the intangibles of how things work behind the scenes. Just let them look to the stars and be big-eyed dreaming of teh FF's signing the once-relevant US Const.

You still missed the (long) bus, the short one will be by soon. Andy wrote: - ... the Supreme Court is a political institution. - ... when a hot-button issue like gun control comes up, the SC tends to vote on political lines. - In my view, no judge, liberal or conservative, or anywhere in between, has an "objective" view of the law. - Judges are people, not legal computers. They all bring their personal world view to the decisions they make. - The notion that some judges are "activist" and some are not is ridiculous. - Every judge out there interprets the law through the prism of their own moral, political, and social belief system. Now you come back and agree, yet then say we need objective justices. Do you realize what you're saying? You're saying of course justices are partial and all will be, but we need justices that don't exist; impartial ones. You demand the impossible; objective justices not driven by party lines. It isn't there and the earth hasn't spun off its axis, these guys you want don't exist so you have to pick people who side with your position; that's how it works. What you've said is tanamount to: We need gasoline cars that don't pollute. MIKE, IT AINT THERE, BRO. We can try to get cars that don't pollute as much, but in the end we're stuck with pollution or walking/biking. We need paracgutes that don't malfunction. If you agree they all can mal (same as agreeing justices are agenda-driven) then we have to just take it for what it is. With skydiving we can decide not to jump with the knowledge they can mal, but since we must skydive we chose a chute that mals in a way we can deal with. Get the analogy? You're that starry-eyed kid, dreaming of watching the FF's sign teh US Const as if it were baby Jebus in the manger, but it just isn't that relevant today. You not addressing the Loving V Virginia example is evidence to all you're running.

One issue at a time so as to nopt confuse those w/o college (vo-tech doesn't count). http://www.thefreedictionary.com/moot moot (mt) n. 1. Law A hypothetical case argued by law students as an exercise. 2. An ancient English meeting, especially a representative meeting of the freemen of a shire. tr.v. moot·ed, moot·ing, moots 1. a. To bring up as a subject for discussion or debate. b. To discuss or debate. See Synonyms at broach1. 2. Law To plead or argue (a case) in a moot court. adj. 1. Subject to debate; arguable: a moot question. 2. a. Law Without legal significance, through having been previously decided or settled. b. Of no practical importance; irrelevant. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Middle English, meeting, from Old English mt, gemt.] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- mootness n. Usage Note: The adjective moot is originally a legal term going back to the mid-16th century. It derives from the noun moot, in its sense of a hypothetical case argued as an exercise by law students. Consequently, a moot question is one that is arguable or open to debate. But in the mid-19th century people also began to look at the hypothetical side of moot as its essential meaning, and they started to use the word to mean "of no significance or relevance." Thus, a moot point, however debatable, is one that has no practical value. A number of critics have objected to this use, but 59 percent of the Usage Panel accepts it in the sentence The nominee himself chastised the White House for failing to do more to support him, but his concerns became moot when a number of Republicans announced that they, too, would oppose the nomination. When using moot one should be sure that the context makes clear which sense is meant. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - They have moot courts in law schools, but the contemporary practical everyday meaning in legal circles is that, "moot" means already decided, redundant to discuss ' irrelevant, etc. Tell what they think it means on the Texas farmland, I'm totally interested. See, you have once again distanced yourself from those with educations, yet insist on heckling me for having one. ROFLOL

Esquire AndyBoyd wrote this absolutely brilliant post and you posted twice to me after his, yet nothing about his? We get it, unless you and the usual suspects can group together and post your 15 cents worth of legal knowledge in the form of compounded ad hominem, you have no interest in real intelligent discourse. Come on, Andy comes off as reasonable, objective and he's a lawyer; what more do you want? He's saying what I've been saying for a while; why avoid it? One of my first law school professors asserted that the Supreme Court is a political institution. I think she was at least partially right. There are lots of SC decisions on arcane areas of the law that have very little to do with politics, but when a hot-button issue like gun control comes up, the SC tends to vote on political lines. Here's a related point to chew on. There is a legal school of thought that basically says that judges make decisions based more on political and moral views than on any "objective" view of the law. Here's a quick quote from an article I'll link to. "Legal realists maintain that common-law adjudication is an inherently subjective system that produces inconsistent and sometimes incoherent results that are largely based on the political, social, and moral predilections of state and federal judges." http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Legal+Realism In my view, no judge, liberal or conservative, or anywhere in between, has an "objective" view of the law. Judges are people, not legal computers. They all bring their personal world view to the decisions they make. The notion that some judges are "activist" and some are not is ridiculous. Every judge out there interprets the law through the prism of their own moral, political, and social belief system.

And here I thought it was based on their interpretation of the laws. Tell ya what - why don't you find us a recent decision that was based on politics like you and Lucky claim - I want to see how they wrote THAT decision. The decision to nominate Roberts was based on politics. The decision to nominate Alito was based on politics. The decision to nominate Sotomayor was based on politics. The decision to nominate Kagan was based on politics. If politics wasn't involved there wouldn't be any partisan voting on the nominations. Re-read the bolded, above, then try again. One of my first law school professors asserted that the Supreme Court is a political institution. I think she was at least partially right. There are lots of SC decisions on arcane areas of the law that have very little to do with politics, but when a hot-button issue like gun control comes up, the SC tends to vote on political lines. Here's a related point to chew on. There is a legal school of thought that basically says that judges make decisions based more on political and moral views than on any "objective" view of the law. Here's a quick quote from an article I'll link to. "Legal realists maintain that common-law adjudication is an inherently subjective system that produces inconsistent and sometimes incoherent results that are largely based on the political, social, and moral predilections of state and federal judges." http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Legal+Realism In my view, no judge, liberal or conservative, or anywhere in between, has an "objective" view of the law. Judges are people, not legal computers. They all bring their personal world view to the decisions they make. The notion that some judges are "activist" and some are not is ridiculous. Every judge out there interprets the law through the prism of their own moral, political, and social belief system. See, Mike, once you get around the law a bit, it becomes clear what drives it. Now you will never back down, but maybe in a different forum, different venue you will learn a bit. Mike, I know you've resigned me to being just some GD liberal fuck (that should draw some fun quote responses) but this guy has it nailed and he's a lawyer. As I said before, starry-eyed kids dream of this wonderful, noble document where we all face the ground and feel awe-inspired if we were ever in the same room as it, but it's just a museum piece to those in the know. If not then you wouldn't hate the justices I adore and vice versa. I mean the evidence is right there espoused by you and yours, yet you don't acknowledge it. >>> ...but when a hot-button issue like gun control comes up, the SC tends to vote on political lines. And abortion, and elections (200 pres election), and 4th issues and so on and so on, etc..... >>> In my view, no judge, liberal or conservative, or anywhere in between, has an "objective" view of the law. This is so moot it's amazing tha it has to be stated, but ti does as there are lots of starry-eyed kids out there enamoured with this concept of how the law works over the real application. >>> Judges are people, not legal computers. They all bring their personal world view to the decisions they make. Just like any of would be; I wouldn't be objective and I doubt anyone can be with that kind of power. >>> The notion that some judges are "activist" and some are not is ridiculous. Every judge out there interprets the law through the prism of their own moral, political, and social belief system. STATEMENT OF THE YEAR NOMINATION. Either that or my justices are objective and Mike's are evil activists with a RW agenda. Funny, he says mine are activist; who'da thunk it.

Ok, here's an example I just wrote, address this or show us all how meaningful your contribution here is: How about antimiscegenation; people of diff races marrying? I'm sure being slave owners that they disagreed with that, but Loving V Virginia said it was illegal for the 16 states at the time to prohibit that, yet the SCOTUS did, were they actists? Come on, you know the FF would be rolling in their graves, anyone dare to jump fwd here and decalre themselves a racist and say that Loving was unConstitutional. I mean it's right there, marrying a black person then would be like marrying your pet today; how could the FF have meant for whites to marry blacks? As I thought, then let's render the rag dead and make decisions based upon what we need today.

OK, you claim there were diffs is word meaning; could be. But that doesn't establish, "well-regulated" means, "well oiled" it just assumes that. By today's standard it's a huge stretch, so we would need a dictionary from that era, but I guess you just want to assume that. Truth is the justices just wanted to decided a given way, they did and then looked for ways to justify it. It's called building a case from the top, down, cops and prosecutors do it as protocol, I'm used to it - it's flawed logic but I see it all the time. Ok, who taught Kelp how to count, I thought we had agreed not to do that? I see you support your ad hominem with a compound ad hominem; again, I'm used to it. When you've spoke with and been taught by as many legal scholars as I have, you get used to eyes rolling when you bring up the concept, "Constitution." This old rag is best left for Libertarian nuts, Minutemen, and children who still believe Santa Claus is real, the gov will do what they want and circumvent the US Const. Well, your party wanted to enact Amendment 28 with the homophobe Amend, do you believe the FF meant that same sex should not marry and if so, should we be stuck with such an antiquated concept? How about antimiscegenation; people of diff races marrying? I'm sure being slave owners that they disagreed with that, but Loving V Virginia said it was illegal for the 16 states at the time to prohibit that, yet the SCOTUS did, were they actists? Come on, you know the FF would be rolling in their graves, anyone dare to jump fwd here and decalre themselves a racist and say that Loving was unConstitutional. I mean it's right there, marrying a black person then would be like marrying your pet today; how could the FF have meant for whites to marry blacks? As I thought, then let's render the rag dead and make decisions based upon what we need today.

I see, I don't understand the supremacy clause and you aren't willing to state it (because you don't understand it). Really? And here I thought the SCOTUS decided that is 1973 and is recognized as stare decisis. Abortion IS federally protected as per Roe v Wade, let's not be fundamental. Is it directly constitutional? No, but under the 14th Amendment it is. See, you're a typical conservative and if you like the way an issue has gone, it's thumbs up constitutional. If you disagree then it's an abomination to the Constitution. Sorry, both guns and abortion are constitutional, guns more directly. And you make my point about state's rights; connies want them to be supreme to the gov and libs want them subordinate to the fed. This is tired and age-old, but we know when small factions get too much power how shit goes and I'm just not an anarchist. Right, the word isn't used but it was interpreted out that there was one inferred. See, we keep citing examples of what me and carmen are saying. Activists, in your world, are bringing things like privacy, hence abortion into the US Const, then trying to claim that, "well-regulated" doesn't mean, "well-oiled." On my side it's the opposite, I think the current and recent (30 years) justices have been activist as the composition has been 7-2 Repub-appointed for quit a while. If we step back then either all justices or none are activist. Let's say Roberts grew a heart and a conscience and decided to be liberal, to you he would have gone from being a 'fair-n-balanced' interpreter of the US Const to one a sleezy activist. I realize you're pandering to your likes/dislikes, as we all do, just not everyone is so bold as to pretend they have an idea of what the FF meant, esp on smaller issues. Objectively I think if we stayed in the late 1700's, abortion would be punishable by death and since we had no standing army, the FF's meant for us to have a militai controlled by the government, based upon the times and construction of our society. As for prvate gun ownership, I don't think they really addressed it, they were more concerned for the defense of the country. It is because contemporarily it is considered a right, fuck the FF. I see, decisions that you like are not activist, how rself-riteous. I think most gun decisions are activist, if I dare to use the term, altho I don't think the word, "activist" is meaningful in constructive conversation, it just shows dismay at the outcome. Evidence of that is that Ginsburg is considered activist, but if I found a decision she made that is considered pallatable by teh right, then all of the sudden she wasn't being activist. So 'activist' just denotes dismay.

And here I thought it was based on their interpretation of the laws. Tell ya what - why don't you find us a recent decision that was based on politics like you and Lucky claim - I want to see how they wrote THAT decision. The decision to nominate Roberts was based on politics. The decision to nominate Alito was based on politics. The decision to nominate Sotomayor was based on politics. The decision to nominate Kagan was based on politics. If politics wasn't involved there wouldn't be any partisan voting on the nominations. Re-read the bolded, above, then try again. Because to do as he asserted would burst your idealic bubble and ruin your naivety. Mike, SCOTUS justices are extensions of politicians. Sometimes they do flip-flop, but so do politicians like Jeffords and several others. Generally they stay true to their appointers and act with the ideals they were nomimated as.

In the current state of partisan divide, one party could nominate Jesus or Aristotle and the other would still insist on a dog and pony show followed by no votes. The process is no less political than the nomination itself. What he's saying is that after appointment/confirmation, a justice is seated and then the politics resume; it's not some flowery meeting of old folks bouncing the thoughts of the FF around, it's just an extension of partisan bickering.

And here I thought it was based on their interpretation of the laws. Tell ya what - why don't you find us a recent decision that was based on politics like you and Lucky claim - I want to see how they wrote THAT decision. They're all based upon politics. As Carmen said, these appointments are highly controversial due to everyone knowing these justices will decide based upon their political perspective. There are a few flip-flopers, like Earl Warrne, appointed by Eisenhower as Chief Justice, supposed to be highly conservative but flipped as one of the most liberal ever. But I'm sure you know that with all your other SCOTUS knowledge

Show it or shut it. Try to keep your argument in context. What am I saying, this is just another unsubstantiated hit-n-run.

Wait... Do you believe in a "living Constitution" or not? Do you believe the SC or not? It seems you take the position that works best for you when you want it, and switch when it works better for you. Lucky is quite right. The Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means, which means it changes dynamically. The Supreme Court makes arbitrary decisions much of the time, based only on politics, which is why there is so much pissing and moaning in the Senate over appointments. Bingo. You're wasting your time trying to get some of the geniuses here get that. You and I know how SCOTUS decisions work, there is a certification process, Writ of Certiorari, once certified the court takes its sides based upon political leanings, if the decision is close eash side starts to court the moderates and once a mojority and dissent is established, the justices have their clerks write these up and the justices edit them. Young kids with stars in their eyes still think these old folks sit around and ask each other, "What would the FF have done?"

Wait... Do you believe in a "living Constitution" or not? Do you believe the SC or not? It seems you take the position that works best for you when you want it, and switch when it works better for you. Illustrate what you mean via example. I won't wait up.

Why no, that's not restricting the ability of citizens to exercise their constitutional rights... It appears that inner city disadvantaged are less likely to have the means to comply. Why doesn't Daley think that the poor deserve their constitutional rights? Wht not, you don't. Errr, unless it's related to an issue that you find important.

Good thing it's just your opinion, then. I don't think the original draft was arbitrary, it was very well designed, designed to keep blacks enslaved and women as chattle. I only studied it and other aspects of justice/law for years, you? Basically tossed it around the internet, latch onto what you like, call the rest a product of activism.

Good, then I'll count you as, "I agree" that SCOTUS decisions are far more relevant than the original writings. I don't care whethewr your recollection is accurate or not. Thsi conversation is about SCOTUS decisions vs the original draft; do try to stay up and on track. Yes, they are teh binding version of theoriginal draft, but to say they aren't decided from the to-down is ridiculous. The justices decide how they want a case to go and use whatever they can to suppot that; the Heller decision is a good example of that. Right, because you like the outcome. Had the SCOTUS decided far off what Heller gace us, then it would have been completely wrong; ends justify the means. If we're gonna be silly then the majority were the activists and if/when it's overturned, the then majority will be the prevailing activists. As fore what they meant, you can't even remotely understand what they meant, just like or dislike 9 justices making that call. BTW, how is the term, "well regulated" whether hyphenated or not, there is some dispute, how does that mean, " well maintained?" It's a stretch to say the least. But that allows the logic that we don't have to check in our guns for regulation.

Another socialist, I hope you're not one of those socialist-hating socialists.

No, I save that for those like you that could get insurance but expect someone else to pay their way. Regardless, I'm good - I've got my Obama Tax Hike Exemption Card, so I won't have to pay that 'one dime more in taxes' that Obama promised. Oh I could get catastrophe ins with a 10k/yr pay, but I couldn't afford a reasonable deductable, I checked, it's 500/mo. So basically heart surgery is covered, nothing else is. And the other multi-million people w/o HC who can't afford it? Yea I know, from the family values guy, you don't give a fuck.

Ok, so if all that happened w/o the radical appreciation via low interest rates, the houses would default and be worth approximately what they sold for minus foreclosure costs. The real messis found in the hyperinflation.

Says the GWB voter.

Listen, I can't speak for the women but I am Black and I am a Free American. Blue Skies, DJ Whhhhoshhhhhh. If you were around when the FF were busy declaring freedom, the point being discussed, you shure as fuck would not. Let's stop celebrating these thugs as seekers of freedom and liberty.

If we get you to actually adress an issue.....oh wait, that's never happened.

Thanks for showing you didn't read the article. I'll paraphrase for you: "Costs are going to go up" - several accounting firms "There aren't enough doctors and access is going to suffer" - doctors But hey...you keep toeing that Obamacare line.... Si se puede!! Right and so the alternative is to let millions go w/o HC. Neither one of us has missed the point, you just keep reitterating your disconcern for those w/o HC.

You don't want to fuck people? So.... what do you fuck? http://www.animalspapper.com/wallpaper/Sheep-1/