Supreme court ducks the issue

Exactly....and the fact that 4 newspapers used the words
"dogded", and "sidestepped" in their headlines, provides
more reasonable examples that the words can be, and WERE
used, in benign ways.


AGAIN....the FACTS are.... the supreme court did NOT address the core issue. End of story.

peace

axeman



Quote from Turok:

This whole thing simply depends on the definition of "ducked" or "dodged". One can use the term to imply something nefarious, or the term can be completely benign -- as in "I dodged a bullet" or "I ducked out of the meeting".

I can't speak to how Axe is using the terms, but I for one feel that the Court dodged a bullet here. It's gonna be a interesting situation when someone with standing takes it back to them. I'll enjoy the hell out of watching that one.

JB
More...
 
Dodge, sidestep....opinions only, not fact. The court has no reason to wasted time with technically flawed cases, no matter what the issue of the case is.

If you look at Roe vs. Wade, there are still appeals on that case because of the claim that the case was technically flawed in the beginning that has nothing to do with the real issue of abortion, so the court is doing its best to have cases of this importance be absolutely free of any technical grounds for further appeal.

Once this issue at the heart of this case is properly formed, filed with no wiggle room for technical issues to be a problem, and reaches the court, the ruling with be strong, and that ruling will be capable of focusing on the issues without the technical problems this case had.

So, the issue was not ducked, dodged, or sidestepped, the case was dismissed properly, 8-0, with agreement from both the right and the left that the case was flawed.

I am making a case in support of why the Supreme Court did the right thing.

Can you make your own case that they "dodged" the case, is that possible?

Or can you do nothing but parrot others?

I made a strong case why there was a dismissal, and 8-0 at that.

Make your case why the technically flawed case should not have been dismissed?

Can you do that?

You likely are pissed because your side lost.

I understand, but at least be man enough to admit that is what is really going on here. The attorney's who brought the case to the Supreme Court were out of their judicial league.

Losing is a bitch, isn't it?

Next time have a case that is technically flawless and cannot be so easily sent back to the minors.

This was like watching a college boy up against a man, and the boy goes down swinging, and cries like a baby when he is sent back home to Omaha to Double A.

The big leagues of the Supreme Court are for the big boys.

Quote from axeman:

Youve already been called out with your ALIAS coward, you blind? LOL!


I already DEALT with the issue.

Its a done deal. Its an objective fact and hard reality that the
supreme court DID NOT RULE on the core issue.

Read the newspaper clippings I just posted.... dodge dodge sidestep ...etc.

Now go register your 100th alias since Pabst already gave
your banned silly self away....LOL! :p

peace

axeman
More...
 
Quote from axeman:

Exactly....and the fact that 4 newspapers used the words
"dogded", and "sidestepped" in their headlines, provides
more reasonable examples that the words can be, and WERE
used, in benign ways.


AGAIN....the FACTS are.... the supreme court did NOT address the core issue. End of story.

peace

axeman
More...

oh shut up your lying yap you freakin loser. you never ever take responsibility for your statements the very moment your nose is rubbed in your stupidity :D

ps very nice work ZZZZZzzzzzz
 
A referee sees a foul at a Basketball game.

The person committing the foul is Kobe Bryant, in game 5 of the finals with the Lakers facing elimination, and if the foul is called, it would mean he is fouling out with 15 minutes left in the game with the score tied. The referee's decision will impact the outcome of the game dramatically.

If he sees the foul, but does not call it, he is "ducking" and "sidestepping" his responsibility.

His job is to call the foul, no matter what the papers say, what Phil Jackson says, no matter what the fans or broadcasters say.

It is the job of the Supreme Court to evaluate a case technically first, before they even begin to address the issues that gave rise to the case.

They did their job, they did not duck, nor sidestep anything.

The agreed 8-0, with both liberals and conservatives in agreement, that cases they see for appeal need to be technically strong and free of flaw before they can address the moral and social, as well as Constitutional issues.

This is a win for the judicial system, doing it right is what the Supreme Court is all about. I want a Supreme Court that puts the exactness of the law first, and their personal opinions of the issues second.

Now, if a case can be brought to them on the issue of church and state that is free of technical flaw, then we will get a ruling.

They did not dodge the issue, they had no reason to deal with the issue of church and state with a technically flawed case.



Quote from axeman:

I see....youre only interested in little 777 semantic games.
Totally predictable.

If you want to assume that "ducked" means there is some grand
conspiracy to avoid the issue by the justices, then be my guest.

But there is no proof of this one way or the other.

My position is that the core issue was NEVER ADDRESSED.
Period. Its not arguable.

All those newspapers used terms such as "ducked" and "sidestepped", does
this mean they believe that the supreme court really avoided
the issue ON PURPOSE because they have some agenda???

Come on now.... I have my suspicions...but there is no real
proof for this. ITS MERELY A CHOICE OF WORDS.

Youre reading into it WAY too much. Thats your own fault.



peace

axeman
More...
 
I certainly have no bias or predisposition compelling me to agree with ART but HE'S CLEARLY CORRECT IN HIS ARGUMENT. Case closed.
 
Dodge, sidestep....opinions only, not fact.

Depends on the meaning of the word now doesn't it?

When someone says that the supreme court dodged or sidestepped
the core issue, it can very well mean that they simple failed
to address the core issue, for whatever reason.

The newspaper headlines clearly show this as I doubt they
all believe in some conspiracy theory crap.

So, the issue was not ducked, dodged, or sidestepped, the case was dismissed properly, 8-0, with agreement from both the right and the left that the case was flawed.

Again... you FAIL to recognize that those words can have
multiple meanings.
You ARE aware that most words have many meanings
in a dictionary don't you :D Surely you aren't THAT clueless?


Or can you do nothing but parrot others?

I see.... so accurately quoting other people is now parroting?
You intellect is truly dazzling :p

Make your case why the technically flawed case should not have been dismissed?

Beautiful strawman on your part. Typical of a person who
stands on weak ground. Did I EVER say that a technically
flawed case should not be dismissed?
Of course I didn't...this is your very own fabulous fabrication.
Again...your intellect is truly dizzying. :p

Losing is a bitch, isn't it?
Hey einstein..... my name isn't NewDow. LOL! :p
I understand you're confused....its ok...really :p


Next time have a case that is technically flawless and cannot be so easily sent back to the minors.

Please address Mr Dewdow with this statement. Apparently
you are very confused. Let me confirm that I am NOT M. Newdow. :D

This was like watching a college boy up against a man, and the boy goes down swinging, and cries like a baby when he is sent back home to Omaha to Double A.

Ad hominem attacks....nice very nice...ill add that to your list
of fallacies along with your opening strawman.
Again...dazzling intellect you're showing there.



Off you go 777.... along with all your psycho babble and nonsense
once again. Lets see how long it takes you to get banned again.
And rightfully so. :D


peace

axeman
 
Not quite Pabst.

If you agree with 777, then you put yourself in a very difficult position.

Those 4 newspaper headlines all used the words dodged and sidestepped.

So this begs the question:

Do all 4 of those newspapers believe that the word dodge/sidestep
implies some kind of political conspiracy, that the supreme court
wiggled its way out of a tough ruling by pushing a technicality???

OOORRRR.... does it simply prove that their choice of words are
simply synonyms for the fact that the supreme court did not
address the core separation of church and state issue?

Or maybe you are aware of a different meaning for the
word dodge in this context??
It seems 777 is offended that anyone would use the word
DODGE because it implies that the supreme court somehow cheated.

Why do YOU think the 4 newspaper headlines MEANT when
they said DODGED and SIDESTEPPED????


peace

axeman


Quote from Pabst:

I certainly have no bias or predisposition compelling me to agree with ART but HE'S CLEARLY CORRECT IN HIS ARGUMENT. Case closed.
More...
 
So tell us then ART.

**WHAT** did the 4 newspaper headlines MEAN
by dodge/sidestep??? HMMMMMMM??????????


Come on boy... you can answer this one.
Its not that tough, really :D

peace

axeman


Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

SNIP ALL THE BLAH BLAH BLAH.........

They did not dodge the issue, they had no reason to deal with the issue of church and state with a technically flawed case.
More...
 
A department head is looking at a stack of resumes on his desk.

All these resumes represent people trying to make a case for why they should be hired.

The department head looks at a resume. It is full of spelling errors. There are circular stains on the resume, where you can clearly see that the person used the resume as a coaster for their beer.

The department head rejects the candidate because of a poor presentation by the condition of the resume and because of the spelling errors. He denies the candidate the opportunity to make his case personally.

Did the department head "duck" or "sidestep" an interview with the candidate?

No, he rejected the candidate without even looking at the issues of the candidate's ability to fill the job.

Is this uncommon or unreasonable? Is it irresponsible? Don't we assume that a resume should meet a standard of competence before being reviewed seriously to the point of bringing someone in to hear their argument as to why they should be hired? Of course we do. We expect excellence in a resume if we have any hope of an excellent candidate.

Exactly the same is what the Supreme Court did. The appeal to the court is like a resume, and it was not strong enough to pass the technical merits for an interview, an opportunity to present the case on the issues, where a case based on the issues could be made.

The court rejected the case, dismissed the case.

It did so properly and responsibility. It did so 8-0, and would have been 9-0 if Scalia hadn't recused himself.

Now, a person who was rejected will naturally be angry and hurt, and they will claim the court "dodged" "ducked" or "sidestepped" the issue, but the court is absolutely right to reject a case when it is founded on weak technical foundation. Why hear the issues on a case where the technical merits are flawed?

So, the person with the sloppy resume can clean it up and re-submit it, or he can wallow in self pity. He can take responsibility for being bitch slapped down and make the necessary changes to win the right of an interview, or he can try to blame the court for properly doing their job.

Semantics are very important, the letter of the law is important. We are a country of laws and exactness, not opinions.
 
I'm confused as to what all the controversy it about. Practically every news source I have read from today have used these and similar words to describe the courts actions and yet they have not claimed that the decision was faulty.

Seems to the that everyone here is saying the same thing...that the primary issue of the case WAS NOT dealt with *because* the Dad had no standing.

It seem so useless to fight when we agree.

JB
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top