Supreme court ducks the issue

Quote from axeman:

Is this poser with no trading account still around :D :p
Get lost kid.... you proved yourself wrong on the diet thread
again. I threw down the gauntlet and you DODGED the core question
thus admitting defeat. You lost again.... as usual.
You never fail to deliver dipshit :p

You've been served.... for the millionth time. :p

peace

axeman
More...


oh i delivered on all fronts..

in SPADES!

you proved yourself unworthy of any more of my time or attention.

you got your nuts squashed here..

and obliterated on diet thread at my hand..

bad day for ya axemonkey eh haha
 
Listen up you delusional little piece of shit :p

You got your ass handed to you AGAIN.

I objectively PROVED youre full of it.


Further.... ET needs to take the garbage out.
You dont even trade.... you blew up your little 10K account!
ROFLAMOOOOOOOOOO :p

Get lost poser..... your low IQ is dragging the ET average waaaay down :p

BWAAAA HAAA HAAAAAAA!!!!!!

How many MORE of my bets are you gonna run away from chicken little? :p

peace

axeman


Quote from LongShot:

oh i delivered on all fronts..

in SPADES!

you proved yourself unworthy of any more of my time or attention.

you got your nuts squashed here..

and obliterated on diet thread at my hand..

bad day for ya axemonkey eh haha
More...
 
Axe, you're being argumentive and illogical.(though I respect your intellect)

The Supreme Court did not DUCK the issue. Your choice of verbiage is disingenuous.
 
Quote from Pabst:

Axe, you're being argumentive and illogical.(though I respect your intellect)

The Supreme Court did not DUCK the issue. Your choice of verbiage is disingenuous.
More...

haha axe :D

oh yeah check out his ILL LOGIC on Diet thread
 
Quote from ArchAngel:

You can argue that they ducked the issue all you want.

However, the fact is that the real message the Supreme Court sent was to the lower courts (especially the overly aggressive and much overturned 9th Circuit) that instead of seeking to immediately jump in and forward their own activist agenda by trying to write new law from the bench, they should at the very least first address key fundamental issues with every case they hear - like whether the person bringing it even has the legal standing to do so.

This case should have died in the lower courts simply because Newdow lacks the status to legally bring the suit.

Clarification - no it does NOT mean the 9th Circuit ruling stands, in California or anywhere else. The Supreme Court ruling vacates all prior lower court rulings because the suit was invalid on its face because Newdow lacked legal standing to bring it.
More...
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-1624

they clearly ducked it - they based the lack of standing on custody claims on the child that arose after the suit was filed. do you really think a custody claim was the reason the case made it to the supreme court? LOL.

the sup. ct. reaches a decision, then plays with whatever precedent is available to support it - its entirely political. there's enough variability in the case law to justify anything, if they want to. If the parents had been in reversed positions, they would've argued that a non-custodial parent retains rights nonetheless.

they were looking for an easy way to put this away. this is a low-profile, politically-correct way to clear up some controversy, for the time being anyway. as to why... take a guess.
 
The word "duck" is not mine. Im using the american atheists
quoted verbiage in case you didnt notice.

My position is that the CORE issue was NOT addressed. Period.
There was NO ruling on the separation of church and state issue
which is what this case is REALLY all about. Not Newdows
custody issues.

Wether or not there was some conspiracy by the supreme court
to avoid the issue on purpose is a different matter.


peace

axeman



Quote from Pabst:

Axe, you're being argumentive and illogical.(though I respect your intellect)

The Supreme Court did not DUCK the issue. Your choice of verbiage is disingenuous.
More...
 
Quote from axeman:

The word "duck" is not mine. Im using the american atheists
quoted verbiage in case you didnt notice.


peace

axeman
More...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHA..

HERE HE GOES AGAIN..

"WELL I WEALLY WEALLY DINT MEAN DUCK, NOT MY WORDS..BLAH BLAH BLAH..."

BWHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAA!!

DODGE HEDGE DODGE HEDGE DODGE HEDGE DODGE HEDGE

LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE


WHAT A PIECE OF WORK. SEE ME EXPOSE THIS POSER FURTHER ON DIET THREAD!!
 
Quote from axeman:

The word "duck" is not mine. Im using the american atheists
quoted verbiage in case you didnt notice.

My position is that the CORE issue was NOT addressed. Period.
There was NO ruling on the separation of church and state issue
which is what this case is REALLY all about. Not Newdows
custody issues.

Wether or not there was some conspiracy by the supreme court
to avoid the issue on purpose is a different matter.


peace

axeman
More...

Without a correctly filed case, how can a ruling be made?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top