*penalty flag* 10 yard penalty, Improper commingling of "common definitions" with "terms of art"

In the law, terms of art are used in ways different from common definitions. For example, "discovery" can mean a whole lot of things according to ordinary definition - but as a legal term, it has a specific meaning and that meaning is exclusive. It is the same way with the term precedent. In ordinary definition, precedent has a few meanings, "pattern of behavior" being one of them. However, in the law as a term of art, it has a specific exclusive meaning.

8/22/2005 4:41:00 PM

then please to show me where I have referenced the legal aspect of the word.

i merely asked if they had not established a precedent with the history of the previous rulings.

[Edited on August 22, 2005 at 4:45 PM. Reason : df]

8/22/2005 4:42:48 PM

Well you were responding to me - and I have always used the term "precedent" in the legal sense, showing how Roberts during his confirmation hearings was required to answer the way he did because the case was legal precedent and an Appeals Judge has to apply precedent. Then I started talking about how the Supreme Court has overruled precedent a lot of times but has never reinstated overruled precedent. In all of those instances, the legal term of art was being used. You are trying to bring in the common definition in order to confuse people and make my position look inconsistent. Intellectual dishonesty, 15 yard penalty.

^ Exactly. You were trying to bring the common definition of the word in, in order to make my position look inconsistent. Intellectual dishonesty.

[Edited on August 22, 2005 at 4:47 PM. Reason : add]

8/22/2005 4:44:54 PM

i know this is a little of topic, but whats the penatly for being gay and responding to posts as "penalties" ?

8/22/2005 4:48:52 PM

Quote :

"As far as not overturning a decision that has been settled law for so long, just look at Lawrence v. Texas from two terms ago. "

but to be fair, didnt they overturn a law that was only 17 years old?

Roe vs Wade is well over 30 years old now. Do you not think that because the "legal precedent" has been set for so long, that they may not wish to dig up such old skeletons?

[Edited on August 22, 2005 at 5:01 PM. Reason : d]

8/22/2005 5:00:45 PM

Not at all; if it is Constitutionally wrong then it is Constitutionally wrong regardless of how old it is. I do not think there is an "age line" beyond which decision are untouchable.

8/22/2005 5:54:35 PM

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2005/190905imperialbagman.htm

Quote :

"John Roberts: career-long criminal player and imperial bagman [...] While much of the focus on Bush's choice of Judge Roberts has centered on his life-long conservative ideology, including his hostility towards women's rights, a sleeper issue has been Roberts's support for giving the Executive nearly unlimited authority, at least when the White House is held by a Republican. "Roberts's deference to presidential power is a strand that has run through his entire career as special assistant to Ronald Reagan's attorney general, a legal strategist for Reagan's White House counsel, a top deputy to George H.W. Bush's solicitor general Kenneth W. Starr, and a federal appeals court judge accepting George W. Bush's right to deny due-process rights to anyone deemed an 'enemy combatant.'" As noted by Parry and others, Roberts work on behalf of the presidential "apex of political power" has been a continuous participation in government corruption from the 1980s to the present. With all due respect to Parry, these are not "sleeper" issues. Roberts 1) counseled Reagan/Bush on how to get around congressional restrictions on contra funding; 2) counseled Reagan/Bush on the establishment of CIA/narcotrafficking proprietaries; 3) counseled Reagan/Bush on how to obstruct Iran-Contra special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh's probe; 4) as US Appeals Court judge, endorsed the most extreme aspects of George W. Bush's "war on terrorism," including the right to designate "enemy combatants" and the endorsement of torture, the protection of the Bush administration's right to torture; and 5) has maintained intimate ties to top Bush administration officials, including all participants in the CIA/Plame case (which could be decided by a Roberts court). This is, by definition, a criminal background, in direct participation as well as association, with treason, mass murder and crimes against humanity. In the Bush world, where open criminality and corruption are king, Roberts is the ideal yes-man for the chief justice post, where he will oversee the final destruction of what remains of American democracy."

9/19/2005 12:25:56 PM

Roberts infamous for supporting homosexual organizations
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8887798/

Quote :

"Conservative organization to oppose Roberts Work on behalf of gays in Colorado case brings rebuff from Virginia group WASHINGTON - A conservative group in Virginia said Tuesday it would oppose Supreme Court nominee John Roberts’ confirmation because of his work helping overturn a Colorado referendum on gays. The stance by Public Advocate of the United States, which describes itself as a pro-family organization, puts it in opposition to conservative groups that have endorsed Roberts. A number of liberal groups oppose President Bush’s nominee. “The move comes as a result of Roberts’ support for the radical homosexual lobby in the 1996 Supreme Court case Romer v. Evans, which overturned a pro-family law passed by the citizens of Colorado in an appalling act of judicial activism,” the group said in a news release. "

Let me remind people that all but 2 of the members of the last full Supreme Court were Republican appointees. So, was that court "conservative"? Absolutely not. It was a court that continued to support abortion and affirmative action, and took pro-homosexual, anti-marriage stances in many decisions.

No matter whether the appointee is republiCON or democRAT, they will implement the socialist/humanist/communist agenda of the globalist/NWO controllers.

Just think about it for a second, and you will begin to see that the left/right, republican/democrat paradigm is a scam, and that both parties are controlled and implementing the same agenda while masquerading as opposing parties.

[Edited on September 28, 2005 at 11:03 AM. Reason : 1]

9/28/2005 10:56:29 AM

MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!1

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/29/roberts.nomination/index.html

9/29/2005 1:00:05 PM

No more baby killing. All you whores better keep your legs shut./

9/29/2005 1:02:58 PM

not a shock

but good news nonetheless

9/29/2005 1:05:19 PM

^^^^ holy shit...

STFU

9/29/2005 1:06:04 PM

9/29/2005 1:19:30 PM

Keep your legs shut - keep your mouths open - EVERYONE WINS

9/29/2005 1:45:43 PM

^^ So?

9/29/2005 2:10:56 PM

^^ Stop lusting after women.

9/29/2005 2:44:53 PM

9/29/2005 2:50:02 PM

Cool swearing in ceremony - I saw Justices O'Connor, Kennedy, Breyer, and Stevens there, apparently 2 more were also.

9/29/2005 3:15:18 PM

9/29/2005 3:18:40 PM

x

9/29/2005 3:20:19 PM

If he overturns roe, its gonna be war.

And the republican party won't come out alive.

10/1/2005 12:34:28 PM

Roe v. Wade is on the way out. It is 6-3 pro-abortion now, but O'Connor is leaving and should be replaced by a conservative. That leaves it 5-4 pro-abortion, but poises the Court to continue to chip away at Roe using restrictions such as partial birth abortion, etc. John Paul Stevens is 85, and Ginsburg has cancer - there is no telling whether Bush will get another nomination in his tenure but I would not be surprised.

10/1/2005 12:58:50 PM

^ We can only hope.

10/1/2005 12:59:19 PM

^^

That's funny. An overwhelming majority of Americans oppose overturning Roe v. Wade (according to Gallup) and yet, here's the "conservative" who complains about the court's dictatorial aims arguing that it should diametrically oppose the will of the people and do as it pleases.

(queue the hemming and hawing about "constructionism" -- next we'll be repealing Miranda Rights too)

[Edited on October 1, 2005 at 5:49 PM. Reason : foo]

10/1/2005 5:48:43 PM

Those polls are greatly biased - look at how they are phrased. They will often ask the question "Do you think Roe v. Wade, the decision which legalized abortion in the first three months of pregnancy, should be overturned." That is an incorrect statement of the law - Roe v. Wade legalized abortion at any time during pregnancy and for any reason whatsoever. (It was decided along with a companion case Doe v. Bolton, which made this clear).

You can get anyone to say anything you like, depending upon how you phrase the question. "Do you think that abortion should be legal for all nine months of pregnancy for any reason whatsoever" would probably yield a far different result. The same statistics you cite show that the vast majority of Americans either oppose all or 95% of all abortions.

10/2/2005 4:37:55 PM

70 % of all statistics are made up on the spot.

10/2/2005 4:41:51 PM

Gallup is widely regarded as unbiased and nonpartisan - your slant is blatantly obvious.

10/2/2005 4:55:09 PM

i hope that roberts totally comes out and is like "hey guess what, i'm actually pro choice; PWNT"

10/2/2005 6:02:24 PM

lol.

Show me how the question was asked.

10/2/2005 8:44:17 PM

Quote :

"Those polls are greatly biased"

You're a law student. I don't care to hear your opinions about how Gallup is wrong; they're paid to do it and you aren't. When you become a professional statistician, let me know.

[Edited on October 3, 2005 at 12:15 AM. Reason : foo]

10/3/2005 12:14:17 AM

anyone who needs to have "honorable" in their job title must be a fucking liar

10/3/2005 12:15:35 AM

^^ I'm a lawyer. (That is not necessarily a boost in my credibility, haha) All I want to know is how the question was phrased. When we were having an abortion discussion earlier, someone posted the link to a bunch of statistics that included the phraseology of the questions - maybe it was PIC boards, but it should be pretty easy to find. Just tell me how the question was asked.

^ It's amazing how many people have "The Honorable" prefix - county commissioners, court clerks, the coroner, etc...

[Edited on October 3, 2005 at 12:20 AM. Reason : add]

10/3/2005 12:18:56 AM

http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

stfukkthnxbye

10/3/2005 12:27:40 AM

^E.g.:

Quote :

"If one of the U.S. Supreme Court justices retired, would you want the new Supreme Court justice to be someone who would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade -- the decision that legalized abortion -- or vote to uphold it?"

As of June:

Overturn: 29%
Uphold: 65%
Unsure: 6%

10/3/2005 12:33:47 AM

That's it.. thank you MF. Now, I see the "first three months" myth repeated in a great number of these questions - just as I said. You see that also, do you not?

10/3/2005 2:25:16 AM

^ You are such a joke.

10/3/2005 10:52:29 AM

I'll take that as a yes. Which admits my point. Thank you for playing, next please.

10/3/2005 10:53:45 AM

Take it as that you're a joke. It's one thing to have a certain political or other view and try and push it forth. It's quite something else to be presented with a smoking gun (e.g. Smoker4's post) and still deny its existence.

10/3/2005 10:58:43 AM

The baby killing must stop.

10/3/2005 11:24:43 AM

I'll rephrase that.
Anyone with "honorable" in their job title will have more pressure put on them to be dishonorable than a normal job, because of power for example, therefore they tend to be less honorable than people working normal jobs, because its easier for them to be dishonorable and get away with it. Honorable is a title given to shut the public up.

10/3/2005 3:26:15 PM

I think they should go back to the old styles - Your Excellency, the Right Honourable Senator, etc..

10/3/2005 3:34:38 PM

Roe v. Wade will never fall hahahahahah

10/3/2005 6:10:39 PM

In a sense it has fallen already. Everything except the basic holding has been completely done away with. Only a fragment remains to be swept away by the Roberts Court.

10/3/2005 6:25:41 PM

Except the whole safe and legal aborting of bajillions of fetuses... yeah, everything but that got swept away.

10/3/2005 7:50:56 PM

How about we just make it illegal to abort white babies. After all, the more black babies we abort, the more the crime rate will fall.

10/3/2005 7:54:48 PM

^^ I'm talking about the legal aspects of the ruling. Nothing more of Roe v. Wade legally remains except the underlying premise that abortion is a "Constitutional right". Everything else, the trimester system, all the reasoning, etc., has been done away with.

Tons of women have died from legal abortions.


[Edited on October 4, 2005 at 12:14 AM. Reason : add]

10/4/2005 12:12:42 AM

blah, pointless

[Edited on October 4, 2005 at 12:38 AM. Reason : a]

10/4/2005 12:37:35 AM

Quote :

"According to a survey conducted by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) of more than 1,500 plastic and reconstructive surgeons in January, 1999, the death rate of one in every 5,000 (or 20 out of 100,000) liposuction patients between 1994 and 1998 was much higher than anyone anticipated--higher even than death rates from traffic accidents."

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2000/600_flab.html

Quote :

"From 1990 through 1997, the number of legal induced abortions gradually declined. In 1998 and 1999, the number of abortions continued to decrease when comparing the same 48 reporting areas. In 2000, even with one additional reporting state, the number of abortions declined slightly. In 1998 and 1999, as in previous years, deaths related to legal induced abortions occurred rarely (<1 death per 100,000 abortions). "

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5212a1.htm

Quote :

"The authors compare the mortality rate associated with abortion (0.6 per 100000)..."

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/350/18/1908

forget abortion, plastic surgery is much deadlier than abortion. Tons of women have died from legal cosmetic surgery.

10/4/2005 1:03:49 AM

[Edited on October 4, 2005 at 1:19 AM. Reason : fuck da police]

10/4/2005 1:14:27 AM

1 in 5000 or 1 in >100000, doesnt matter, because both are safe enough the danger will scare only the most cowardly people

10/4/2005 1:18:00 AM