Workers In Tennessee Forced To Take Muslim Holiday Instead Of Labor Day

[jem]

AAA why are arguing with STU. He has no ability to support his thesis. He is too much of a pole smoker to even admit what his thesis is.

His theory is a joke and once he states it, I have case law that will crush him. But he refuses to state it. He has played this game before - he argues like a little fairy with no balls.

Come on STU fess up what are you trying to say. That the Supreme Courts rulings go back in time to invalidate hundreds of years of law and practice? What is your holding - have you no backbone?

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from jem:

It must especially ironic to you that a conservative supported the will of the majority even though he is concerned that liberal policies are ruining our culture. Oh wait - that normal for a real conservative.

Nothing wrong with conservatives (not that there are that many of us anymore) my reference was to Republicans which could not be further from conservative.

But as for your statement, if that's true then Gore was president.

Don't think so.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from bigdavediode:

This is my favorite thread. Xenophobic Republicans attacking a decision of the majority
because they're outraged that a plant has gotten rid of a holiday instituted by labor unions and socialists that was achieved via a general strike.

My irony meter just exploded.

Sorry about your irony meter. I'm just guessing you wouldn't find it so hilarious if they had voted MLK day out.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from jem:

AAA why are arguing with STU. He has no ability to support his thesis. He is too much of a pole smoker to even admit what his thesis is.

His theory is a joke and once he states it, I have case law that will crush him. But he refuses to state it. He has played this game before - he argues like a little fairy with no balls.

Come on STU fess up what are you trying to say. That the Supreme Courts rulings go back in time to invalidate hundreds of years of law and practice? What is your holding - have you no backbone?

All part of ET's rich texture.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

AAA why are arguing with STU. He has no ability to support his thesis. He is too much of a pole smoker to even admit what his thesis is.

His theory is a joke and once he states it, I have case law that will crush him. But he refuses to state it. He has played this game before - he argues like a little fairy with no balls.

Come on STU fess up what are you trying to say. That the Supreme Courts rulings go back in time to invalidate hundreds of years of law and practice? What is your holding - have you no backbone?

I think you both argue theses points because deep down behind a blinding faith backed bigoted evangelical slant on the world , both AAA and yourself have a nagging feeling you are wrong.

Quote from jem:

That the Supreme Courts rulings go back in time to invalidate hundreds of years of law and practice? What is your holding - have you no backbone?

Making up more and more questions that have nothing to do with what I said isn't very bright of you. It was specifically mentioned that those Supreme Rulings are made in support of the Constitution, it is easy to see how they are. Therefore they cannot invalidate law. But they do invalidate unconstitutional practices which are always unconstitutional by definition.

I know well enough by now that you cannot make distinctions. Everything to you is corroborated by religion.
Here again you cannot understand the simple distinct differences between what is the Constitution , Court Ruling and jurisprudence.

From the more considered response of his posts, I think AAA may one day resist re-interpreting every bit of the Constitution as if it were a religious manifesto and treat it more as THE most important Legal document which it is. Maybe he will then resist lashing out at Courts who support and uphold it, just because they do not always find for a religious zeal.

As for you, well , hopeless about fits.

 

[jem]

The ultimate puss out. When challenged to simply state his point - this is what a person with not intellectual backbone will do:

Quote from stu:

I think you both argue theses points because deep down behind a blinding faith backed bigoted evangelical slant on the world , both AAA and yourself have a nagging feeling you are wrong.


Making up more and more questions that have nothing to do with what I said isn't very bright of you. It was specifically mentioned that those Supreme Rulings are made in support of the Constitution, it is easy to see how they are. Therefore they cannot invalidate law. But they do invalidate unconstitutional practices which are always unconstitutional by definition.

I know well enough by now that you cannot make distinctions. Everything to you is corroborated by religion.
Here again you cannot understand the simple distinct differences between what is the Constitution , Court Ruling and jurisprudence.

From the more considered response of his posts, I think AAA may one day resist re-interpreting every bit of the Constitution as if it were a religious manifesto and treat it more as THE most important Legal document which it is. Maybe he will then resist lashing out at Courts who support and uphold it, just because they do not always find for a religious zeal.

As for you, well , hopeless about fits.

By the way I noticed your new addition to the argument - the one that it is an implied admission that your previous statement was incorrect.

STU your arguments consistently manifest a juvenile understanding of jurisprudence and logic. That you are saying I do not understand case law would have to be considered a compliment.

But since you seem to want to play law professor - why don't you compare and contrast your beliefs stated above with the reality of one of the first cases every student of the law (u.s) reads in the first few days of school. Perhaps you will disabuse yourself of such childish notions.


Buck v. Bell - Now explain that case in light of your statement

"they do invalidate unconstitutional practices which are always unconstitutional by definition."

You see STU the court even gets basic core fundamental rights wrong. The court changes and its views of what is constitutional changes. Unfortunately the court is made of human beings and their views change.


I can give you case after case. I can show you where the court's view of labor laws - changed. One year they were unconstitutional - a decade or two later and they were constitutional.

You see Stu you are talking out your juvenile ass.

Now of course you will try to argue something off point and play your little game. But the bottom line is you are a total intellectual fairy - unwilling to even restate your position so we could have real debate.

You sir are a the type of person who is educated enough to make an argument but dense enough to not recognize when he is wrong. In short you are the definition of a fool.

 

[stu]

jem, you are obviously distraught. You should maybe just leave it. Obviously you haven't got a clue what's actually being said, nor can you make one lucid response.

It's clear enough. Where the Constitution actually says "no" , you cannot try to say that means "yes" , by pretending to argue some disconnected ambiguous case law, when you clearly have no clue about relevance.

Perhaps you'll be better off after all keeping to the lines of the ardent religionist, where no can mean yes, logic has no role , but at least psychosis can find sanctuary.
sheeesh.

 

[jem]

Another puss out.
Have you no intellectual pride?
If you had a background in jurisprudence you would appreciate why many if not all law students are required to read Buck v. Bell early in education. After reading that case people who think for themselves a disabused of the juvenile mindset you have. After and hour and half discussing the case in a classroom all but the dolts understand that the reason why they were required to read the case.

You really should read the case or at least wikipedia's excerpt it.

Then you will understand the constitution is always interpreted and it is always subject the the interpretation of the justices. They have been known to read anything they want in or out of it. (its why many argue that the judges should be following original intent)

In Buck v. Bell they found that the state could basically practice Eugenics.

Now how could that be constitutional in one century not in another.

The existence of that case rips the heart out of your argument on multiple levels.


But, I suspect you are too dense to get it.



I have taken the time here to show how primitive you are. I will not get back to more important stuff.

Perhaps you should try a year of schooling and then come back.


I doubt I will be responding any further... at least not until you the balls to make a real argument based on the law and jurisprudence.

Quote from stu:

jem, you are obviously distraught. You should maybe just leave it. Obviously you haven't got a clue what's actually being said, nor can you make one lucid response.

It's clear enough. Where the Constitution actually says "no" , you cannot try to say that means "yes" , by pretending to argue some disconnected ambiguous case law, when you clearly have no clue about relevance.

Perhaps you'll be better off after all keeping to the lines of the ardent religionist, where no can mean yes, logic has no role , but at least psychosis can find sanctuary.
sheeesh.

 

[stu]

You are suggesting that it helps your already totally shot credibility to argue eugenics would not (or should not - which?) violate the U.S. Constitution. Do you want to reconsider that?

The Buck v Bell case challenged the right to substantive due process under the Constitution, the Court found due process was available. Also argued was equal protection under the Fourteenth.
That is an ambiguous argument in any event, which has no relevance to the unambiguity of the Clause in Article VI which was the issue in the first place…..

Were the Constitution to have written anywhere within it ....

; but no sterilization or eugenics of a person or persons shall ever be carried out by any office or public trust under the United States or anyone, against the will of that person or persons..... … no doubt you would try to argue it wouldn’t be unconstitutional because Virginia carried out forced sterilization in 1927.

Your argument is uneducated ignorant pathetic redundant and futile. So yes by all means don’t bother replying further. You’ve already made a complete tit of yourself anyway.

Foremost required reading in any Law School worth the name is the Constitution.
I don't take counsel from someone who , as you have done, professes to have been through "Law School" , yet came out the other end repeatedly using the word site for cite.

Quote from jem:

Another puss out.
Have you no intellectual pride?
If you had a background in jurisprudence you would appreciate why many if not all law students are required to read Buck v. Bell early in education. After reading that case people who think for themselves a disabused of the juvenile mindset you have. After and hour and half discussing the case in a classroom all but the dolts understand that the reason why they were required to read the case.

You really should read the case or at least wikipedia's excerpt it.

Then you will understand the constitution is always interpreted and it is always subject the the interpretation of the justices. They have been known to read anything they want in or out of it. (its why many argue that the judges should be following original intent)

In Buck v. Bell they found that the state could basically practice Eugenics.

Now how could that be constitutional in one century not in another.

The existence of that case rips the heart out of your argument on multiple levels.

But, I suspect you are too dense to get it.

I have taken the time here to show how primitive you are. I will not get back to more important stuff.

Perhaps you should try a year of schooling and then come back.

I doubt I will be responding any further... at least not until you the balls to make a real argument based on the law and jurisprudence.

 

[jem]

Stu you missed the point again.

Cutting and pasting or summarizing others work does not substitute for understanding and thinking.

Would the 1970s supreme court have allowed sterilization by the state because 3 generations of imbeciles are enough? Over time the court did eviscerate the Buck v. Bell ruling


Do you think your right to reproduce is a constitutional right - perhaps more important than the right to privacy? How could the constitution protect your right to smoke pole but not protect your right to reproduce?

In short STU the court changes its mind. What you think is a constitutional right today might not be a right tomorrow. (abortion?).

And nowhere have you ever cited support for you theory that by declaring that portions of the state constitutions were unconstitutional the court was stating they were always unconstitutional. You made that up out of the thin air of a juvenile mind.

You have pussed out again.