Does anybody actually agree with this?
- Thread starter Flash
- Start date
maybe it just looks like how you feel about your family
and fool you notice how coombzy dodged you?
factz not feelz as he and ztir likes to say
but only topic he real interested in is consistently himself
and fool you notice how coombzy dodged you?
factz not feelz as he and ztir likes to say
but only topic he real interested in is consistently himself
some more uninformed guessing from me (that seems obvious)
judges exist to interpret and apply the law
intent is a factor when judges interpret and apply the law and make judgements
the intent and result in this case was a hate brigade of angry Christians harassing the gays, hence the large fine
here was an Oregonian law "interpreting" Federal immigration law
Judge didn't violate rules in letting immigrant leave through back door, review finds | OregonLive.com
Oregon judge accused of helping illegal immigrant escape under investigation | Fox News
Oregon judge under scrutiny after immigrant escapes courtroom - CNN
nobody found any issue with that either
terms that might interest you here:
activist judges
9th circuit court
banana republic
kangaroo courts
Last edited:
i have such a high opinion of Fool's intelligence that i can't help but assume he's trolling me when he makes posts like these...
time for lunch vab
just because you'll cry if i don't answer you:
i'm not reading these, but i assume it's a case of a judge interpreting and applying the law in a way that is clearly retarded
so does that mean you're making a direct comparioson, and that you think a fine for doxxing with intent to fuck someone over is also a bad judgement by the judge?
is it because i'm a crazy liberal that i think it's perfectly fair to punish that behaviour? ;o
time for lunch vab
just because you'll cry if i don't answer you:
i'm not reading these, but i assume it's a case of a judge interpreting and applying the law in a way that is clearly retarded
so does that mean you're making a direct comparioson, and that you think a fine for doxxing with intent to fuck someone over is also a bad judgement by the judge?
is it because i'm a crazy liberal that i think it's perfectly fair to punish that behaviour? ;o
Last edited:
so if someone does something entirely legal, but does it in a mean-spirited way, it should be subject to a fine? you can't be serious
errr no, I didn't say that at all
why would something be up before a judge if it was entirely legal?
you did, though
you said intent is a factor when judges interpret the law
intent should only be a factor when it is specified in the law (degrees of murder/assault/etc)
otherwise, intention is irrelevant (illegal discrimination [against a protected class] is not excused if the intentions were good)
also, like fool said, i'm pretty sure this was from a lawsuit
IANAL, but that sounds like complete bollocks to me
what's the point of a lawsuit if not to present evidence for and against and get a nuanced judgement from an authority?
Last edited:
And if i remember correctly, in both cases where a cake was not made, it was not because the people were gay, it was because it was a political/religious topic that they, the bakers, could not go against. The argument then became, is the cake a form of expression? There was a major push by the progressives to keep this as a form of discrimination against a sexual persuasion minority but for each, the company in Colorado and Oregon both said it has nothing to do with that at all, and everything to do with the message, the meaning behind what the cake represents - gay marriage.
so you think if someone t-bones your car and he has a good enough reason for why he was driving so recklessly that his punishment should be reduced or eliminated entirely?
how do you get to that, from what i posted? jfc
i hope you're trolling or really hungover or something, and not actually this stupid
all i said was what i believe the role of a judge is, with regards to this and other cases. i'm not making judgements myself here bro
Last edited:
Esteban_Villa
Veteran XV
idk how commonwealth judiciary works
but here in america the whole judicial review thing, i believe in having a read a shit ton, was the first major (singular & constitutional) issue that was debated by our two parties, even prior to the first sunset of the 'slaves as 3/5ths a vote' provision. with the federalists and anti-federalists, our first two parties and essentially but not quite the democrats and the republicans, respectively, today; the anti-federalists vehemently disagreed with any power that would allow judges to be activists cause what is retarded to you or I isn't to others, like if women should be able to drive or not. Saudi Arabians would clearly disagree in large numbers to our standard opinion.
as much as we argue over petty shit on this forum and is a reflection of our society as a whole, your one random sentence is one of the actual issues of substance we need to debate. Even though you are clearly not going to be agreeing 100% with tele or fool, getting rid of activist judges via changing their ability to do so is something I believe most of the (online dwelling) trumpers would agree as would you, as anyone with half a brain and isnt interested in seizing power for their side knows that activist judges will help you sometimes, and hurt you just as much, so there is no reason for them to be able to do so.
at federal sentencings, judges are basically just placing various factors on a couple of two axis charts and depending on where they line up, get a sentence. Remose = 7/10, severity =3/10, they wind up in a lower box. inverse the numbers, higher. I recommend anyone (that can, tough for you to in NZ lol) go to a sentencing and you will see a (federal) judge's job is literally laid out and it's just up them to place it. A computer could and should do it. The constitutional portion is where shit gets wacky and essentially the die should be cast from the get go, and any layers over top would just be added insulation to ensure no one was having a bad day beneath. Your run of the mill cases where a judge shouldn't have allowed evidence but did is really it, and it's pretty clear based on the framers intent to side with the opinion of 'more rights' when confronted with a situation that isn't explicitly delineated. If something should be, that's what congress is for, amendments (and budgets), holy shit a wild idea. Instead we have members of the judiciary, appointed by the executive, doing congress's job and it varies from appellate district to appellate district, decade by decade, administration by administration. what a fucking retarded system unless you just want to distract everyone, in which case it's great.
happy new years to all u homos tho, saw that sentence and it's one of those sentences that could actually bring us together instead of keeping us apart like 'they' want us to be