Utopia Talk / Politics / Regarding The *HERO* That Shouted "lie"

Hot Rod Member	Thu Sep 10 16:23:22 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml
PhunkyPhishStyle Member	Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it.
Hot Rod Member	Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken.
saiko Member	Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself.
Spam Detector 3000 Member	Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif
Ninja Member	Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up?
Aeros Member	Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters.
Hot Rod Member	Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth.
kargen Member	Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently.
Randal Graves Member	Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head:
Forwyn Member	Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out.
Aeros Member	Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question.
Forwyn Member	Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle.
Ninja Member	Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds)
Hot Rod Member	Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us?
FTY New Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:02 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:03 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:04 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:04 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:06 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:07 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:07 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. ontent-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded Content-Length: 5538 YOURNAME=FTY
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:07 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:07 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:08 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:08 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:08 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:08 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:09 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:09 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:09 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:10 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:10 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:10 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:10 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:11 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:11 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:11 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. ontent-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded Content-Length: 5538 YOURNAME=FTY
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:11 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:12 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:12 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:12 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:12 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:12 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:13 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:13 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:13 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:14 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:14 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:14 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:14 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:15 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:15 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:15 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:15 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:15 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:16 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:16 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:16 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:16 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:16 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:17 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:17 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:17 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:17 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:17 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. ontent-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded Content-Length: 5538 YOURNAME=FTY
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:18 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:18 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:18 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:18 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:19 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. ontent-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded Content-Length: 5538 YOURNAME=FTY
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:19 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:19 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:19 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:20 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:20 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:20 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:20 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:28 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:29 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:29 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:31 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:31 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. ontent-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded Content-Length: 5538 YOURNAME=FTY
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:31 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:32 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:32 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:32 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:32 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:33 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:33 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:33 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:33 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:33 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:34 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:34 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:34 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:43 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:43 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:43 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
FTY Member	Thu Sep 10 18:51:44 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us
roland Member	Thu Sep 10 19:08:33 "Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. " The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage.
roland Member	Thu Sep 10 19:10:31 That really pxss off the Americans who wanted mandatory sex change with the illegals.
Hot Rod Member	Thu Sep 10 20:42:10 ttt
Ayn Rand Member	Thu Sep 10 20:59:20 Property From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from Property rights) Jump to: navigation, search This article is about the legal or moral ownership rights. For other uses, see Property (disambiguation). This article is missing citations or needs footnotes. Please help add inline citations to guard against copyright violations and factual inaccuracies. (July 2007) Scales of justice Property law Part of the common law series Acquisition Gift · Adverse possession · Deed Conquest · Discovery · Accession Lost, mislaid, and abandoned property Treasure trove · Bailment · License Alienation Estates in land Allodial title · Fee simple · Fee tail Life estate · Defeasible estate Future interest · Concurrent estate Leasehold estate · Condominiums Conveyancing Bona fide purchaser Torrens title · Strata title Estoppel by deed · Quitclaim deed Mortgage · Equitable conversion Action to quiet title · Escheat Future use control Restraint on alienation Rule against perpetuities Rule in Shelley's Case Doctrine of worthier title Nonpossessory interest Easement · Profit Covenant running with the land Equitable servitude Related topics Fixtures · Waste · Partition Riparian water rights Lateral and subjacent support Assignment · Nemo dat Property and conflict of laws Other common law areas Contract law · Tort law Wills, trusts and estates Criminal law · Evidence v â?¢ d â?¢ e Property is any physical or intangible entity that is owned by a person or jointly by a group of persons. Depending on the nature of the property, an owner of property has the right to consume, sell, rent, mortgage, transfer, exchange or destroy his or her property, and/or to exclude others from doing these things.[1][2][3] Important widely-recognized types of property include real property (land), personal property (physical possessions belonging to an person), private property (property owned by legal persons or business entities), public property (state owned or publicly owned and available possessions) and intellectual property (exclusive rights over artistic creations, inventions, etc.), although the latter is not always as widely recognized or enforced.[4] A title, or a right of ownership, is associated with property that establishes the relation between the goods/services and other persons, assuring the owner the right to dispense with the property in a manner he or she sees fit. Some philosophers assert that property rights arise from social convention. Others find origins for them in morality or natural law. Contents [hide] * 1 Use of the term * 2 General characteristics * 3 Theories of property * 4 Property in philosophy o 4.1 Ancient philosophy o 4.2 Pre-industrial English philosophy + 4.2.1 Thomas Hobbes (1600s) + 4.2.2 James Harrington (1600s) + 4.2.3 Robert Filmer (1600s) + 4.2.4 John Locke (1600s) + 4.2.5 William Blackstone (1700s) + 4.2.6 David Hume (1700s) o 4.3 Critique and response + 4.3.1 Charles Comte - legitimate origin of property + 4.3.2 Pierre Proudhon - property is theft + 4.3.3 Frédéric Bastiat - property is value o 4.4 Contemporary views * 5 Types of property * 6 What can be property? o 6.1 Rights of use as property * 7 Who can be an owner? * 8 Whether and to what extent the State may interfere with property * 9 See also * 10 References * 11 Bibliography * 12 External links and references [edit] Use of the term Various scholarly communities (e.g., law, economics, anthropology, sociology) may treat the concept more systematically, but definitions vary within and between fields. Scholars in the social sciences frequently conceive of property as a bundle of rights. They stress that property is not a relationship between people and things, but a relationship between people with regard to things. Public property is any property that is controlled by a state or by a whole community. Private property is any property that is not public property. Private property may be under the control of a single person or by a group of persons jointly.[5] [edit] General characteristics The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. Modern property rights conceive of ownership and possession as belonging to legal persons, even if the legal person is not a natural person. Corporations, for example, have legal rights similar to American citizens, including many of their constitutional rights. Therefore, the corporation is a juristic person or artificial legal entity, which some refer to as "corporate personhood". Property rights are protected in the current laws of states usually found in the form of a constitution or a bill of rights. The United States Constitution provides explicitly for the protection of private property in the Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment: The Fifth Amendment states: Nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. The Fourteenth Amendment states: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. Protection is also found in the United Nations's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 17, and in the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, Article XVII, and in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Protocol 1. Property is usually thought of in terms of a bundle of rights as defined and protected by the local sovereignty. Ownership, however, does not necessarily equate with sovereignty. If ownership gave supreme authority it would be sovereignty, not ownership. These are two different concepts. Traditional principles of property rights includes: 1. control of the use of the property 2. the right to any benefit from the property (examples: mining rights and rent) 3. a right to transfer or sell the property 4. a right to exclude others from the property. Traditional property rights do not include: 1. uses that unreasonably interfere with the property rights of another private party (the right of quiet enjoyment). [See Nuisance] 2. uses that unreasonably interfere with public property rights, including uses that interfere with public health, safety, peace or convenience. [See Public Nuisance, Police Power] Legal systems have evolved to cover the transactions and disputes which arise over the possession, use, transfer and disposal of property, most particularly involving contracts. Positive law defines such rights, and a judiciary is used to adjudicate and to enforce. In his classic text, "The Common Law", Oliver Wendell Holmes describes property as having two fundamental aspects. The first is possession, which can be defined as control over a resource based on the practical inability of another to contradict the ends of the possessor. The second is title, which is the expectation that others will recognize rights to control resource, even when it is not in possession. He elaborates the differences between these two concepts, and proposes a history of how they came to be attached to persons, as opposed to families or entities such as the church. According to Adam Smith, the expectation of profit from "improving one's stock of capital" rests on private property rights. It is a belief central to capitalism that property rights encourage the property holders to develop the property, generate wealth, and efficiently allocate resources based on the operation of the market. From this evolved the modern conception of property as a right which is enforced by positive law, in the expectation that this would produce more wealth and better standards of living. * Classical liberals, Objectivists, and related traditions "Just as man can't exist without his body, so no rights can exist without the right to translate one's rights into reality, to think, to work and keep the results, which means: the right of property." (Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged) Most thinkers from these traditions subscribe to the labor theory of property. They hold that you own your own life, and it follows that you must own the products of that life, and that those products can be traded in free exchange with others. "Every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has a right to, but himself." (John Locke, Second Treatise on Civil Government) "Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place." (Frédéric Bastiat, The Law) "The reason why men enter into society is the preservation of their property." (John Locke, Second Treatise on Civil Government) * Socialism's fundamental principles are centered on a critique of this concept, stating, among other things, that the cost of defending property is higher than the returns from private property ownership, and that even when property rights encourage the property-holder to develop his property, generate wealth, etc., he will only do so for his own benefit, which may not coincide with the benefit of other people or society at large. * Libertarian socialism generally accepts property rights, but with a short abandonment time period. In other words, a person must make (more or less) continuous use of the item or else he loses ownership rights. This is usually referred to as "possession property" or "usufruct." Thus, in this usufruct system, absentee ownership is illegitimate, and workers own the machines they work with. * Communism argues that only collective ownership of the means of production through a polity (though not necessarily a state) will assure the minimization of unequal or unjust outcomes and the maximization of benefits, and that therefore private property (which in communist theory is limited to capital) should be abolished. Both communism and some kinds of socialism have also upheld the notion that private property is inherently illegitimate. This argument is centered mainly on the idea that the creation of private property will always benefit one class over another, giving way to domination through the use of this private property. Communists are naturally not opposed to personal property which is "Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned" (Communist Manifesto), by members of the proletariat. Not every person, or entity, with an interest in a given piece of property may be able to exercise all of the rights mentioned a few paragraphs above. For example, as a lessee of a particular piece of property, you may not sell the property, because the tenant is only in possession, and does not have title to transfer. Similarly, while you are a lessee, the owner cannot use his or her right to exclude to keep you from the property. (Or, if he or she does, you may perhaps be entitled to stop paying rent or perhaps sue to regain access.) Further, property may be held in a number of forms, e.g. joint ownership, community property, sole ownership, lease, etc. These different types of ownership may complicate an owner's ability to exercise his or her rights unilaterally. For example if two people own a single piece of land as joint tenants, then depending on the law in the jurisdiction, each may have limited recourse for the actions of the other. For example, one of the owners might sell his or her interest in the property to a stranger that the other owner does not particularly like. [edit] Theories of property There exist many theories. One is the relatively rare first possession theory of property, where ownership something is seen as justified simply by someone seizing something before someone else does.[6] Perhaps one of the most popular, is the natural rights definition of property rights as advanced by John Locke. Locke advanced the theory that when one mixes oneâ??s labor with nature, one gains ownership of that part of nature with which the labor is mixed, subject to the limitation that there should be "enough, and as good, left in common for others." [3] From the RERUM NOVARUM, Pope Leo XIII wrote "It is surely undeniable that, when a man engages in remunerative labor, the impelling reason and motive of his work is to obtain property, and thereafter to hold it as his very own." Anthropology studies the diverse systems of ownership, rights of use and transfer, and possession[7] under the term "theories of property." Western legal theory is based, as mentioned, on the owner of property being a legal person. However, not all property systems are founded on this basis. In every culture studied ownership and possession are the subject of custom and regulation, and "law" where the term can meaningfully be applied. Many tribal cultures balance individual ownership with the laws of collective groups: tribes, families, associations and nations. For example the 1839 Cherokee Constitution frames the issue in these terms: Sec. 2. The lands of the Cherokee Nation shall remain common property; but the improvements made thereon, and in the possession of the citizens respectively who made, or may rightfully be in possession of them: Provided, that the citizens of the Nation possessing exclusive and indefeasible right to their improvements, as expressed in this article, shall possess no right or power to dispose of their improvements, in any manner whatever, to the United States, individual States, or to individual citizens thereof; and that, whenever any citizen shall remove with his effects out of the limits of this Nation, and become a citizen of any other government, all his rights and privileges as a citizen of this Nation shall cease: Provided, nevertheless, That the National Council shall have power to re-admit, by law, to all the rights of citizenship, any such person or persons who may, at any time, desire to return to the Nation, on memorializing the National Council for such readmission. Communal property systems describe ownership as belonging to the entire social and political unit, while corporate systems describe ownership as being attached to an identifiable group with an identifiable responsible individual. The Roman property law was based on such a corporate system. Different societies may have different theories of property for differing types of ownership. Pauline Peters argued that property systems are not isolable from the social fabric, and notions of property may not be stated as such, but instead may be framed in negative terms: for example the taboo system among Polynesian peoples. [4] [edit] Property in philosophy This section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this section if you can. (July 2007) The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. In medieval and Renaissance Europe the term "property" essentially referred to land. Much rethinking was necessary in order for land to come to be regarded as only a special case of the property genus. This rethinking was inspired by at least three broad features of early modern Europe: the surge of commerce, the breakdown of efforts to prohibit interest (then called "usury"), and the development of centralized national monarchies. [edit] Ancient philosophy Urukagina, the king of the Sumerian city-state Lagash, established the first laws that forbade compelling the sale of property. The Ten Commandments shown in Exodus 20:2-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21 stated that the Israelites were not to steal. These texts, written in approximately 1300 B.C. by modern dating, or 2000 B.C. by traditional dating (assuming Mosaic authorship), were a blanket early protection of private property. Aristotle, in Politics, advocates "private property." In one of the first known expositions of tragedy of the commons he says, "that which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it. Every one thinks chiefly of his own, hardly at all of the common interest; and only when he is himself concerned as an individual." In addition he says that when property is common, there are natural problems that arise due to differences in labor: "If they do not share equally enjoyments and toils, those who labor much and get little will necessarily complain of those who labor little and receive or consume much. But indeed there is always a difficulty in men living together and having all human relations in common, but especially in their having common property." (Politics, 1261b34) [edit] Pre-industrial English philosophy [edit] Thomas Hobbes (1600s) The principal writings of Thomas Hobbes appeared between 1640 and 1651â??during and immediately following the war between forces loyal to King Charles I and those loyal to Parliament. In his own words, Hobbes' reflection began with the idea of "giving to every man his own," a phrase he drew from the writings of Cicero. But he wondered: How can anybody call anything his own? He concluded: My own can only truly be mine if there is one unambiguously strongest power in the realm, and that power treats it as mine, protecting its status as such. [edit] James Harrington (1600s) A contemporary of Hobbes, James Harrington, reacted differently to the same tumult; he considered property natural but not inevitable. The author of Oceana, he may have been the first political theorist to postulate that political power is a consequence, not the cause, of the distribution of. He said that the worst possible situation is one in which the commoners have half a nation's property, with crown and nobility holding the other halfâ??a circumstance fraught with instability and violence. A much better situation (a stable republic) will exist once the commoners own most property, he suggested. In later years, the ranks of Harrington's admirers would include American revolutionary and founder John Adams. [edit] Robert Filmer (1600s) Another member of the Hobbes/Harrington generation, Sir Robert Filmer, reached conclusions much like Hobbes', but through Biblical exegesis. Filmer said that the institution of kingship is analogous to that of fatherhood, that subjects are but children, whether obedient or unruly, and that property rights are akin to the household goods that a father may dole out among his childrenâ??his to take back and dispose of according to his pleasure. [edit] John Locke (1600s) In the following generation, John Locke sought to answer Filmer, creating a rationale for a balanced constitution in which the monarch would have a part to play, but not an overwhelming part. Since Filmer's views essentially require that the Stuart family be uniquely descended from the patriarchs of the Bible, and since even in the late seventeenth century that was a difficult view to uphold, Locke attacked Filmer's views in his First Treatise on Government, freeing him to set out his own views in the Second Treatise on Civil Government. Therein, Locke imagined a pre-social world, the unhappy residents of which create a social contract. They would, he allowed, create a monarchy, but its task would be to execute the will of an elected legislature. "To this end" he wrote, meaning the end of their own long life and peace, "it is that men give up all their natural power to the society they enter into, and the community put the legislative power into such hands as they think fit, with this trust, that they shall be governed by declared laws, or else their peace, quiet, and property will still be at the same uncertainty as it was in the state of nature." Even when it keeps to proper legislative form, though, Locke held that there are limits to what a government established by such a contract might rightly do. "It cannot be supposed that [the hypothetical contractors] they should intend, had they a power so to do, to give any one or more an absolute arbitrary power over their persons and estates, and put a force into the magistrate's hand to execute his unlimited will arbitrarily upon them; this were to put themselves into a worse condition than the state of nature, wherein they had a liberty to defend their right against the injuries of others, and were upon equal terms of force to maintain it, whether invaded by a single man or many in combination. Whereas by supposing they have given up themselves to the absolute arbitrary power and will of a legislator, they have disarmed themselves, and armed him to make a prey of them when he pleases..." Note that both "persons and estates" are to be protected from the arbitrary power of any magistrate, inclusive of the "power and will of a legislator." In Lockean terms, depredations against an estate are just as plausible a justification for resistance and revolution as are those against persons. In neither case are subjects required to allow themselves to become prey. To explain the ownership of property Locke advanced a labor theory of property. [edit] William Blackstone (1700s) In the 1760s, William Blackstone sought to codify the English common law. In his famous Commentaries on the Laws of England he wrote that "every wanton and causeless restraint of the will of the subject, whether produced by a monarch, a nobility, or a popular assembly is a degree of tyranny." How should such tyranny be prevented or resisted? Through property rights, Blackstone thought, which is why he emphasized that indemnification must be awarded a non-consenting owner whose property is taken by eminent domain, and that a property owner is protected against physical invasion of his property by the laws of trespass and nuisance. Indeed, he wrote that a landowner is free to kill any stranger on his property between dusk and dawn, even an agent of the King, since it isn't reasonable to expect him to recognize the King's agents in the dark.[citation needed] [edit] David Hume (1700s) In contrast to the figures discussed in this section thus far, David Hume lived a relatively quiet life that had settled down to a relatively stable social and political structure. He lived the life of a solitary writer until 1763 when, at 52 years of age, he went off to Paris to work at the British embassy. In contrast, one might think, to his outrage-generating works on religion and his skeptical views in epistemology, Hume's views on law and property were quite conservative. He did not believe in hypothetical contracts, or in the love of mankind in general, and sought to ground politics upon actual human beings as one knows them. "In general," he wrote, "it may be affirmed that there is no such passion in human mind, as the love of mankind, merely as such, independent of personal qualities, or services, or of relation to ourselves." Existing customs should not lightly be disregarded, because they have come to be what they are as a result of human nature. With this endorsement of custom comes an endorsement of existing governments, because he conceived of the two as complementary: "A regard for liberty, though a laudable passion, ought commonly to be subordinate to a reverence for established government." These views led to a view on property rights that might today be described as legal positivism. There are property rights because of and to the extent that the existing law, supported by social customs, secure them.[8] He offered some practical home-spun advice on the general subject, though, as when he referred to avarice as "the spur of industry," and expressed concern about excessive levels of taxation, which "destroy industry, by engendering despair." [edit] Critique and response By the mid 19th century, the industrial revolution had transformed England and had begun in France. The established conception of what constitutes property expanded beyond land to encompass scarce goods in general. In France, the revolution of the 1790s had led to large-scale confiscation of land formerly owned by church and king. The restoration of the monarchy led to claims by those dispossessed to have their former lands returned. Furthermore, the labor theory of value popularized by classical economists such as Adam Smith[citation needed] and David Ricardo were utilized by a new ideology called socialism to critique the relations of property to other economic issues, such as profit, rent, interest, and wage-labor. Thus, property was no longer an esoteric philosophical question, but a political issue of substantial concern. [edit] Charles Comte - legitimate origin of property Charles Comte, in Traité de la propriété (1834), attempted to justify the legitimacy of private property in response to the Bourbon Restoration. According to David Hart, Comte had three main points: "firstly, that interference by the state over the centuries in property ownership has had dire consequences for justice as well as for economic productivity; secondly, that property is legitimate when it emerges in such a way as not to harm anyone; and thirdly, that historically some, but by no means all, property which has evolved has done so legitimately, with the implication that the present distribution of property is a complex mixture of legitimately and illegitimately held titles." (The Radical Liberalism of Charles Comte and Charles Dunoyer Comte, as Proudhon would later do, rejected Roman legal tradition with its toleration of slavery. He posited a communal "national" property consisting of non-scarce goods, such as land in ancient hunter-gatherer societies. Since agriculture was so much more efficient than hunting and gathering, private property appropriated by someone for farming left remaining hunter-gatherers with more land per person, and hence did not harm them. Thus this type of land appropriation did not violate the Lockean proviso - there was "still enough, and as good left." Comte's analysis would be used by later theorists in response to the socialist critique on property. [edit] Pierre Proudhon - property is theft Main articles: What is Property? and Property is theft! In his 1849 treatise What is Property?, Pierre Proudhon answers with "Property is theft!" In natural resources, he sees two types of property, de jure property (legal title) and de facto property (physical possession), and argues that the former is illegitimate. Proudhon's conclusion is that "property, to be just and possible, must necessarily have equality for its condition." His analysis of the product of labor upon natural resources as property (usufruct) is more nuanced. He asserts that land itself cannot be property, yet it should be held by individual possessors as stewards of mankind with the product of labor being the property of the producer. Proudhon reasoned that any wealth gained without labor was stolen from those who labored to create that wealth. Even a voluntary contract to surrender the product of labor to an employer was theft, according to Proudhon, since the controller of natural resources had no moral right to charge others for the use of that which he did not labor to create and therefore did not own. Proudhon's theory of property greatly influenced the budding socialist movement, inspiring anarchist theorists such as Mikhail Bakunin who modified Proudhon's ideas, as well as antagonizing theorists like Karl Marx. [edit] Frédéric Bastiat - property is value Frédéric Bastiat's main treatise on property can be found in chapter 8 of his book Economic Harmonies (1850). [5] In a radical departure from traditional property theory, he defines property not as a physical object, but rather as a relationship between people with respect to an object. Thus, saying one owns a glass of water is merely verbal shorthand for I may justly gift or trade this water to another person. In essence, what one owns is not the object but the value of the object. By "value," Bastiat apparently means market value; he emphasizes that this is quite different from utility. "In our relations with one another, we are not owners of the utility of things, but of their value, and value is the appraisal made of reciprocal services." Strongly disputing Proudhon's equality-based argument, Bastiat theorizes that, as a result of technological progress and the division of labor, the stock of communal wealth increases over time; that the hours of work an unskilled laborer expends to buy e.g. 100 liters of wheat decreases over time, thus amounting to "gratis" satisfaction. Thus, private property continually destroys itself, becoming transformed into communal wealth. The increasing proportion of communal wealth to private property results in a tendency toward equality of mankind. "Since the human race started from the point of greatest poverty, that is, from the point where there were the most obstacles to be overcome, it is clear that all that has been gained from one era to the next has been due to the spirit of property." This transformation of private property into the communal domain, Bastiat points out, does not imply that private property will ever totally disappear. This is because man, as he progresses, continually invents new and more sophisticated needs and desires. [edit] Contemporary views Among contemporary political thinkers who believe that natural persons enjoy rights to own property and to enter into contracts, there are two views about John Locke. On the one hand there are ardent Locke admirers, such as W.H. Hutt (1956), who praised Locke for laying down the "quintessence of individualism." On the other hand, there are those such as Richard Pipes who think that Locke's arguments are weak, and that undue reliance thereon has weakened the cause of individualism in recent times. Pipes has written that Locke's work "marked a regression because it rested on the concept of Natural Law" rather than upon Harrington's sociological framework. Hernando de Soto has argued that an important characteristic of capitalist market economy is the functioning state protection of property rights in a formal property system where ownership and transactions are clearly recorded. These property rights and the whole formal system of property make possible: * Greater independence for individuals from local community arrangements to protect their assets; * Clear, provable, and protectable ownership; * The standardization and integration of property rules and property information in the country as a whole; * Increased trust arising from a greater certainty of punishment for cheating in economic transactions; * More formal and complex written statements of ownership that permit the easier assumption of shared risk and ownership in companies, and insurance against risk; * Greater availability of loans for new projects, since more things could be used as collateral for the loans; * Easier access to and more reliable information regarding such things as credit history and the worth of assets; * Increased fungibility, standardization and transferability of statements documenting the ownership of property, which paves the way for structures such as national markets for companies and the easy transportation of property through complex networks of individuals and other entities; * Greater protection of biodiversity due to minimizing of shifting agriculture practices. All of the above enhance economic growth.[6] [edit] Types of property This sign declaring a parking lot to be "private property" illustrates one method of identifying and protecting property. Note the citations to legal statutes. Most legal systems distinguish different types (immovable property, estate in land, real estate, real property) of property, especially between land and all other forms of property - goods and chattels, movable property or personal property. They often distinguish tangible and intangible property (see below). One categorization scheme specifies three species of property: land, improvements (immovable man made things) and personal property (movable man made things). In common law, real property (immovable property) is the combination of interests in land and improvements thereto and personal property is interest in movable property. 'Real property' rights are rights relating to the land. These rights include ownership and usage. Owners can grant rights to persons and entities in the form of leases, licenses and easements. Later, with the development of more complex forms of non-tangible property, personal property was divided into tangible property (such as cars, clothing, etc.) and intangible property (such as financial instruments, including stocks and bonds, etc.), and intellectual property, including (patents, copyrights, and trademarks). [edit] What can be property? The two major justifications given for original property, or homesteading, are effort and scarcity. John Locke emphasized effort, "mixing your labor"[citation needed] with an object, or clearing and cultivating virgin land. Benjamin Tucker preferred to look at the telos of property, i.e. What is the purpose of property? His answer: to solve the scarcity problem. Only when items are relatively scarce with respect to people's desires do they become property.[7] For example, hunter-gatherers did not consider land to be property, since there was no shortage of land. Agrarian societies later made arable land property, as it was scarce. For something to be economically scarce, it must necessarily have the exclusivity property - that use by one person excludes others from using it. These two justifications lead to different conclusions on what can be property. Intellectual property - non-corporeal things like ideas, plans, orderings and arrangements (musical compositions, novels, computer programs) - are generally considered valid property to those who support an effort justification, but invalid to those who support a scarcity justification, since they don't have the exclusivity property (however they may still support other 'intellectual property'-laws such as Copyright, as long as these are a subject of contract instead of government arbitration). Thus even ardent propertarians may disagree about IP.[9] By either standard, one's body is one's property. From some anarchist points of view, the validity of property depends on whether the "property right" requires enforcement by the state. Different forms of "property" require different amounts of enforcement: intellectual property requires a great deal of state intervention to enforce, ownership of distant physical property requires quite a lot, ownership of carried objects requires very little, while ownership of one's own body requires absolutely no state intervention. Many things have existed that did not have an owner, sometimes called the commons. The term "commons," however, is also often used to mean something quite different: "general collective ownership" - i.e. common ownership. Also, the same term is sometimes used by statists to mean government-owned property that the general public is allowed to access. Law in all societies has tended to develop towards reducing the number of things not having clear owners. Supporters of property rights argue that this enables better protection of scarce resources, due to the tragedy of the commons, while critics argue that it leads to the 'exploitation' of those resources for personal gain and that it hinders taking advantage of potential network effects. These arguments have differing validity for different types of "property" -- things which are not scarce are, for instance, not subject to the tragedy of the commons. Some apparent critics actually are advocating general collective ownership rather than ownerlessness. Things today which do not have owners include: ideas (except for intellectual property), seawater (which is, however, protected by anti-pollution laws), parts of the seafloor (see the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea for restrictions), gasses in Earth's atmosphere, animals in the wild (though there may be restrictions on hunting etc. -- and in some legal systems, such as that of New York, they are actually treated as government property), celestial bodies and outer space, and land in Antarctica. The nature of children under the age of majority is another contested issue here. In ancient societies children were generally considered the property of their parents. Children in most modern societies theoretically own their own bodiesâ??but they are considered incompetent to exercise their rights, and their parents or guardians are given most of the actual rights of control over them. Questions regarding the nature of ownership of the body also come up in the issue of abortion and drugs. In many ancient legal systems (e.g. early Roman law), religious sites (e.g. temples) were considered property of the God or gods they were devoted to. However, religious pluralism makes it more convenient to have religious sites owned by the religious body that runs them. Intellectual property and air (airspace, no-fly zone, pollution laws, which can include tradeable emissions rights) can be property in some senses of the word. [edit] Rights of use as property Ownership of land can be held separately from the ownership of rights over that land, including sporting rights[8], mineral rights, development rights, air rights, and such other rights as may be worth segregating from simple land ownership. [edit] Who can be an owner? Main article: Ownership Ownership laws may vary widely among countries depending on the nature of the property of interest (e.g. firearms, real property, personal property, animals). Persons can own property directly. In most societies legal entities, such as corporations, trusts and nations (or governments) own property. In the Inca empire, the dead emperors, who were considered gods, still controlled property after death.[10]. [edit] Whether and to what extent the State may interfere with property Under United States law the principal limitations on whether and the extent to which the State may interfere with property rights are set by the Constitution. The "Takings" clause requires that the government (whether state or federal----for the 14th Amendment's due process clause imposes the 5th Amendment's takings clause on state governments) may take private property only for a public purpose, after exercising due process of law, and upon making "just compensation." If an interest is not deemed a "property" right, or the conduct is merely an intentional tort, these limitations do not apply and the doctrine of sovereign immunity precludes relief.[11] Moreover, if the interference does not almost completely make the property valueless, the interference will not be deemed a taking but instead a mere regulation of use.[12] On the other hand, some governmental regulations of property use have been deemed so severe that they have been considered "regulatory takings."[13] Moreover, conduct sometimes deemed only a nuisance or other tort has been held a taking of property where the conduct was sufficiently persistent and severe.[14] [edit] See also * Allemansrätten * Anarchism * Buying agent * Capitalism * Communism * Homestead principle * Immovable Property * Inclusive Democracy * Libertarian * Lien * Off plan * Ownership society * Patrimony * Personal property * Propertarian * Property is theft * Property law * Property rights (economics) * Labor theory of property * Socialism * Sovereignty Property giving (legal) * Charity * Essenes * Gift * Kibbutz * Monasticism * Tithe, Zakat (modern sense) Property taking (legal) * Adverse possession * Confiscation * Eminent domain * Expropriation * Fine * Jizya * Regulatory fees and costs * Search and seizure * Tariffs * Tax * Turf and twig (historical) * Tithe, Zakat (historical sense) * Zoning restrictions * RS 2477 Property taking (illegal) * Theft * Kleptocracy Property of either digital or virtual form * Emerging Virtual Institutions Property economists * Armen Alchian * Ronald Coase * Hernando de Soto [edit] References 1. ^ "property definition". http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/property.html. 2. ^ "property", American Heritage Dictionary, http://www.bartleby.com/cgi-bin/texis/webinator/sitesearch?FILTER=col61&query=property&x=0&y=0 3. ^ "property", WordNet, http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=property&sub=Search+WordNet&o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&h= 4. ^ Anti-copyright advocates and other critics of intellectual property dispute the concept of intellectual property.[1]. 5. ^ Understanding Principles of Politics and the State, by John Schrems, PageFree Publishing (2004), page 234 6. ^ "Property". Graham Oppy. The shorter Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy. Editor Edward Craig. Routledge, 2005, p. 858 7. ^ Hann, Chris A new double movement? Anthropological perspectives on property in the age of neoliberalism Socio-Economic Review, Volume 5, Number 2, April 2007, pp. 287-318(32) 8. ^ This view is reflected in the opinion of the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Willow River Power Co.. 9. ^ [2] 10. ^ Mckay, John P. , 2004, "A History of World Societes". Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company 11. ^ See, for example, United States v. Willow River Power Co. (not a property right because force of law not behind it); Schillinger v. United States, 155 U.S. 163 (1894) (patent infringement is tort, not taking of property); Zoltek Corp. v. United States, 442 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2006). 12. ^ Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978). 13. ^ See United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc., 474 U.S. 121 *(1985). 14. ^ United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (1946). [edit] Bibliography * Frédéric Bastiat, 1850. Economic Harmonies. W. Hayden Boyers, trans.; George B. de Huszar, ed. Liberty Fund. * Dean Russell, "The Law", 1850. * Tom Bethell, 1998. The Noblest Triumph: Property and Prosperity through the Ages. New York: St. Martin's Press. * William Blackstone, 1765-69. Commentaries on the Laws of England, 4 vols. Oxford Univ. Press. Especially Books the Second and Third. * Hernando De Soto, 1989. The Other Path. Harper & Row. * Hernando De Soto and Francis Cheneval, 2006. Realizing Property Rights. Ruffer & Rub. * Ellickson, Robert, 1993, "Property in LandPDF (6.40 MiB)", Yale Law Journal 102: 1315-1400. * Mckay, John P., 2004, "A History of World Societies". Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company * Richard Pipes, 1999. Property and Freedom. [edit] External links and references * Property Law Case Summaries * Private Property, Freedom, and the Rule of Law * "Right to Private Property", Tibor Machan, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy * "The Ethics and Economics of Private Property", Hans-Hermann Hoppe, van Mises Institute
Ayn Rand Member	Thu Sep 10 20:59:42 Freedom of speech From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search For freedom of speech in specific jurisdictions, see Freedom of speech by country. For other uses, see Freedom of speech (disambiguation). Freedom Concepts Freedom · Liberty Negative liberty Positive liberty Rights Freedom by area Civil · Economic Intellectual · Political Freedoms Assembly Association Movement Press Religion Speech Information Thought Part of a series on Censorship A censorship symbol By media Banned books Banned films · Re-edited film Internet · Music · Press Speech and expression Video games Methods Book burning · Book challenging Bleeping · Broadcast delay Chilling effect Conspiracy of silence Content-control software Expurgation · Gag order Memory hole Pixelization · Postal Prior restraint Revisionism Self-censorship Whitewashing Verbal offence Contexts Corporate · Political Religious Criminal speech · Hate speech By country Censorship Freedom of speech v â?¢ d â?¢ e Freedom of speech The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes used to indicate not only freedom of verbal speech but any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are closely yahoo, yet distinct from, the concept of freedom of thought.[citation needed] In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, such as on "hate speech". The right to freedom of speech is recognized as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The ICCPR recognizes the right to freedom of speech as "the right to hold opinions without interference. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression".[1][2] Furthermore freedom of speech is recognized in European, inter-American and African regional human rights law. Contents [hide] * 1 The right to freedom of speech and expression o 1.1 Relationship to other rights * 2 Origins and academic freedom * 3 Freedom of speech and truth * 4 Freedom of speech and tolerance * 5 Democracy * 6 Social interaction and community * 7 Limitations on freedom of speech * 8 The Internet and Information Society o 8.1 Freedom of information o 8.2 Internet censorship * 9 See also * 10 References * 11 External links [edit] The right to freedom of speech and expression Freedom of speech, or the freedom of expression, is recognized in international and regional human rights law. The right is enshrined in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights and Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.[3] The freedom of speech can be found in early human rights documents, such as The Declaration of the Rights of Man (1789), a key document of the French Revolution.[4] Based on John Stuart Mill's arguments, freedom of speech today is understood as a multi-faceted right that includes not only the right to express, or disseminate, information and ideas, but three further distinct aspects: * the right to seek information and ideas; * the right to receive information and ideas; * the right to impart information and ideas.[3] International, regional and national standards also recognize that freedom of speech, as the freedom of expression, includes any medium, be it orally, in written, in print, through the Internet or through art forms. This means that the protection of freedom of speech as a right includes not only the content, but also the means of expression.[3] [edit] Relationship to other rights The right to freedom of speech is closely related to other rights, and may be limited when conflicting with other rights (see Limitations on freedom of speech). The right to freedom of speech is particularly important for media, which plays a special role as the bearer of the general right to freedom of expression for all (see freedom of the press).[3] [edit] Origins and academic freedom Freedom of speech and expression has a long history that predates modern international human rights instruments. Ancient Athenians believed that the power of persuasion is the most enduring force in a culture, one that must not and can not be stifled.[5] It is thought that ancient Athensâ?? democratic ideology of free speech emerged in the later 6th or early 7th Century BC.[6] In Islamic ethics freedom of speech was first declared in the Rashidun period by the caliph Umar in the 7th century.[7] In the Abbasid Caliphate period, freedom of speech was also declared by al-Hashimi (a cousin of Caliph al-Ma'mun) in a letter to one of the religious opponents he was attempting to convert through reason.[8] According to George Makdisi and Hugh Goddard, "the idea of academic freedom" in universities was "modelled on Islamic custom" as practiced in the medieval Madrasah system from the 9th century. Islamic influence was "certainly discernible in the foundation of the first deliberately-planned university" in Europe, the University of Naples Federico II founded by Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor in 1224.[9] [edit] Freedom of speech and truth First page of John Milton's 1644 edition of Areopagitica One of the earliest Western defences of freedom of expression is Areopagitica (1644) by English poet and political writer John Milton. Milton wrote in reaction to an attempt by the English republican parliament to prevent "seditious, unreliable, unreasonable and unlicensed pamphlets". Milton advanced a number of arguments in defence of freedom of speech: a nation's unity is created through blending individual differences rather than imposing homogeneity from above; that the ability to explore the fullest range of ideas on a given issue was essential to any learning process and truth cannot be arrived upon unless all points of view are first considered; and that by considering free thought, censorship acts to the detriment of material progress. Milton also argued that if the facts are laid bare, truth will defeat falsehood in open competition, but this cannot be left for a single individual to determine. According to Milton, it is up to each individual to uncover their own truth; no one is wise enough to act as a censor for all individuals.[10] Noam Chomsky states that: "If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. Stalin and Hitler, for example, were dictators in favor of freedom of speech for views they liked only. If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise."[11] English biographer Evelyn Beatrice Hall quote: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," [12] is often cited to describe the principle of freedom of speech (often mis-attributed to Voltaire) as an illustration of Voltaire's beliefs in Beatrice Hall's biography on him.[13] [edit] Freedom of speech and tolerance Professor Lee Bollinger argues that "the free speech principle involves a special act of carving out one area of social interaction for extraordinary self-restraint, the purpose of which is to develop and demonstrate a social capacity to control feelings evoked by a host of social encounters." Bollinger argues that tolerance is a desirable value, if not essential. However, critics argue that society should be concerned by those who directly deny or advocate, for example, genocide (see Limitations on freedom of speech).[14] [edit] Democracy One of the most notable proponents of the link between freedom of speech and democracy is Alexander Meiklejohn. He argues that the concept of democracy is that of self-government by the people. For such a system to work an informed electorate is necessary. In order to be appropriately knowledgeable, there must be no constraints on the free flow of information and ideas. According to Meiklejohn, democracy will not be true to its essential ideal if those in power are able to manipulate the electorate by withholding information and stifling criticism. Meiklejohn acknowledges that the desire to manipulate opinion can stem from the motive of seeking to benefit society. However, he argues, choosing manipulation negates, in its means, the democratic ideal.[15] Eric Barendt has called the defence of free speech on the grounds of democracy "probably the most attractive and certainly the most fashionable free speech theory in modern Western democracies".[16] Thomas I. Emerson expanded on this defence when he argued that freedom of speech helps to provide a balance between stability and change. Freedom of speech acts as a "safety valve" to let off steam when people might otherwise be bent on revolution. He argues that "The principle of open discussion is a method of achieving a moral adaptable and at the same time more stable community, of maintaining the precarious balance between healthy cleavage and necessary consensus." Emerson furthermore maintains that "Opposition serves a vital social function in offsetting or ameliorating (the) normal process of bureaucratic decay."[17] Research undertaken by the Worldwide Governance Indicators project at the World Bank, indicates that freedom of speech, and the process of accountability that follows it, have a significant impact in the quality of governance of a country. "Voice and Accountability" within a country, defined as "the extent to which a country's citizens are able to participate in selecting their government, as well as freedom of expression, freedom of association, and free media" is one of the six dimensions of governance that the Worldwide Governance Indicators measure for more than 200 countries.[18] [edit] Social interaction and community Richard Moon has developed the argument that the value of freedom of speech and freedom of expression lies with social interactions. Moon writes that "by communicating an individual forms relationships and associations with others - family, friends, co-workers, church congregation, and countrymen. By entering into discussion with others an individual participates in the development of knowledge and in the direction of the community."[19] [edit] Limitations on freedom of speech A National Geographic Magazine censored by Iranian authorities. The picture hidden beneath the white sticker is of an embracing couple.[20] February 2006. For specific country examples see Freedom of speech by country, and Criminal speech. According to the Freedom Forum Organization, legal systems, and society at large, recognize limits on the freedom of speech, particularly when freedom of speech conflicts with other values or rights.[21] Limitations to freedom of speech may follow the "harm principle" or the "offense principle", for example in the case of pornography or "hate speech".[22] Limitations to freedom of speech may occur through legal sanction and/or social disapprobation.[23] Members of Westboro Baptist Church have been specifically banned from entering Canada for hate speech.[24] In "On Liberty" (1859) John Stuart Mill argued that "...there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered."[23] Mill argues that the fullest liberty of expression is required to push arguments to their logical limits, rather than the limits of social embarrassment. However, Mill also introduced what is known as the harm principle, in placing the following limitation on free expression: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.[23] In 1985 Joel Feinberg introduced what is known as the "offence principle", arguing that Mill's harm principle does not provide sufficient protection against the wrongful behaviours of others. Feinberg wrote "It is always a good reason in support of a proposed criminal prohibition that it would probably be an effective way of preventing serious offense (as opposed to injury or harm) to persons other than the actor, and that it is probably a necessary means to that end."[25] Hence Feinberg argues that the harm principle sets the bar too high and that some forms of expression can be legitimately prohibited by law because they are very offensive. But, as offending someone is less serious than harming someone, the penalties imposed should be higher for causing harm.[25] In contrast Mill does not support legal penalties unless they are based on the harm principle.[23] Because the degree to which people may take offense varies, or may be the result of unjustified prejudice, Feinberg suggests that a number of factors need to be taken into account when applying the offense principle, including: the extent, duration and social value of the speech, the ease with which it can be avoided, the motives of the speaker, the number of people offended, the intensity of the offense, and the general interest of the community at large.[23] [edit] The Internet and Information Society Jo Glanville, editor of the Index on Censorship, states that "the Internet has been a revolution for censorship as much as for free speech".[26] International, national and regional standards recognise that freedom of speech, as one form of freedom of expression, applies to any medium, including the Internet.[3] The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Declaration of Principles adopted in 2003 makes specific reference to the importance of the right to freedom of expression for the "Information Society" in stating: "We reaffirm, as an essential foundation of the Information Society, and as outlined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; that this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Communication is a fundamental social process, a basic human need and the foundation of all social organisation. It is central to the Information Society. Everyone, everywhere should have the opportunity to participate and no one should be excluded from the benefits of the Information Society offers."[27] [edit] Freedom of information Main article: Freedom of information Freedom of information is an extension of freedom of speech where the medium of expression is the Internet. Freedom of information may also refer to the right to privacy in the context of the Internet and information technology. As with the right to freedom of expression, the right to privacy is a recognised human right and freedom of information acts as an extension to this right.[28] Freedom of information may also concern censorship in an information technology context, i.e. the ability to access Web content, without censorship or restrictions.[29] [edit] Internet censorship Main article: Internet censorship Main article: Internet censorship in mainland China A Bahraini website blocked The concept of freedom of information has emerged in response to state sponsored censorship, monitoring and surveillance of the internet. Internet censorship includes the control or suppression of the publishing or accessing of information on the Internet.[30] The Global Internet Freedom Consortium advocate for freedom of information for what they term "closed societies".[31] According to the Reporters without Borders (RSF) "internet enemy list" the following states engage in pervasive internet censorship: Belarus, China, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, Myanmar/Burma, North Korea, Syria, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Vietnam.[32] A widely publicised example of internet censorship is the "Great Firewall of China" (in reference both to its role as a network firewall and to the ancient Great Wall of China). The system blocks content by preventing IP addresses from being routed through and consists of standard firewall and proxy servers at the Internet gateways. The system also selectively engages in DNS poisoning when particular sites are requested. The government does not appear to be systematically examining Internet content, as this appears to be technically impractical.[33] Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China is conducted under a wide variety of laws and administrative regulations. In accordance with these laws, more than sixty Internet regulations have been made by the People's Republic of China (PRC) government, and censorship systems are vigorously implemented by provincial branches of state-owned ISPs, business companies, and organizations.[34][35] [edit] See also * Digital rights * E-freedom * Free content * Heckler's veto * International Freedom of Expression Exchange * Media transparency * Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy * OAS Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression [edit] References 1. ^ OHCHR 2. ^ Using Courts to Enforce the Free Speech Provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights | Australia & Oceania > Australia & New Zealand from All Business... 3. ^ a b c d e Andrew Puddephatt, Freedom of Expression, The essentials of Human Rights, Hodder Arnold, 2005, pg.128 4. ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/feb/05/religion.news 5. ^ Murphy, James; Katula, Richard (2003), A Synoptic History of Classical Rhetoric, Lawrence Erlbaum, p. 18, ISBN 1880393352 6. ^ Raaflaub, Kurt; Ober, Josiah; Wallace, Robert (2007), Origins of democracy in ancient Greece, University of California Press, p. 65, ISBN 0520245628 7. ^ Boisard, Marcel A. (July 1980), "On the Probable Influence of Islam on Western Public and International Law", International Journal of Middle East Studies 11 (4): 429â??50 8. ^ Ahmad, I. A. (June 3, 2002), "The Rise and Fall of Islamic Science: The Calendar as a Case Study" (PDF), â??Faith and Reason: Convergence and Complementarityâ??, Al-Akhawayn University, http://images.agustianwar.multiply.com/attachment/0/RxbYbQoKCr4AAD@kzFY1/IslamicCalendar-A-Case-Study.pdf, retrieved 2008-01-31 9. ^ Goddard, Hugh (2000), A History of Christian-Muslim Relations, Edinburgh University Press, p. 100, ISBN 074861009X 10. ^ Andrew Puddephatt, Freedom of Expression, The essentials of Human Rights, Hodder Arnold, 2005, pg.127 11. ^ Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, 1992 12. ^ http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/e/evelyn_beatrice_hall.html 13. ^ Boller, Jr., Paul F.; George, John (1989). They Never Said It: A Book of Fake Quotes, Misquotes, and Misleading Attributions. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 124â??126. ISBN 0-19-505541-1. 14. ^ Lee Bollinger, The Tolerant Society, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1988 15. ^ Marlin, Randal (2002). Propaganda and the Ethics of Persuasion. Broadview Press. pp. 226â??227. ISBN 1551113767 978-1551113760. http://books.google.com/books?id=Zp38Ot2g7LEC&pg=PA226&dq=%22free+speech%22+democracy&lr=#PPA229,M1. 16. ^ Marlin, Randal (2002). Propaganda and the Ethics of Persuasion. Broadview Press. p. 226. ISBN 1551113767 978-1551113760. http://books.google.com/books?id=Zp38Ot2g7LEC&pg=PA226&dq=%22free+speech%22+democracy&lr=#PPA229,M1. 17. ^ Marlin, Randal (2002). Propaganda and the Ethics of Persuasion. Broadview Press. pp. 228â??229. ISBN 1551113767 978-1551113760. http://books.google.com/books?id=Zp38Ot2g7LEC&pg=PA226&dq=%22free+speech%22+democracy&lr=#PPA229,M1. 18. ^ http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi2007/pdf/booklet_decade_of_measuring_governance.pdf A Decade of Measuring the Quality of Governance 19. ^ Marlin, Randal (2002). Propaganda and the Ethics of Persuasion. Broadview Press. p. 229. ISBN 1551113767 978-1551113760. http://books.google.com/books?id=Zp38Ot2g7LEC&pg=PA226&dq=%22free+speech%22+democracy&lr=#PPA229,M1. 20. ^ Lundqvist, J.. "More pictures of Iranian Censorship". http://jturn.qem.se/2006/more-pictures-of-iranian-censorship/. Retrieved August 2007-01-21. 21. ^ When May Speech Be Limited? 22. ^ Freedom of Speech (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) 23. ^ a b c d e Freedom of Speech 24. ^ Church members enter Canada, aiming to picket bus victim's funeral 25. ^ a b Philosophy of Law 26. ^ Glanville, Jo (17 November 2008). "The big business of net censorship". The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/17/censorship-internet. 27. ^ Klang, Mathias; Murray, Andrew (2005). "Human Rights in the Digital Age". Routledge. pp. 1. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=USksfqPjwhUC&dq=%22digital+rights%22+human+rights&source=gbs_summary_s&cad=0. 28. ^ Protecting Free Expression Online with Freenet - Internet Computing, IEEE 29. ^ Pauli, Darren (January 14, 2008). Industry rejects Australian gov't sanitized Internet measure. The Industry Standard. 30. ^ Deibert, Robert; Palfrey, John G.; Rohozinski, Rafal; Zittrain, Jonathan (2008). Access denied: the practice and policy of global Internet filtering. MIT Press. 31. ^ "Mission". Global Internet Freedom Consortium. http://www.internetfreedom.org/mission. Retrieved 2008-07-29. 32. ^ Internet enemies. Reporters without Borders. 33. ^ Watts, Jonathan (February 20, 2006). "War of the words". The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/china/story/0,,1713317,00.html. 34. ^ "II. How Censorship Works in China: A Brief Overview". Human Rights Watch. http://www.hrw.org/reports/2006/china0806/3.htm. Retrieved 2006-08-30. 35. ^ Chinese Laws and Regulations Regarding Internet [edit] External links Search Wikiquote Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Freedom of speech * Freedom of Speech Is It Being Abused? * Speaking Out for Free Expression: 1987-2007 and Beyond * Timeline: a history of free speech * UN-Resolution 217 A III - (Meinungsfreiheit.org) * ARTICLE 19, Global Campaign for Free Expression * The journalist fired for calling Bush a coward after 9/11 * Banned Magazine, the journal of censorship and secrecy. * International Freedom of Expression Exchange * Index on Censorship * irrepressible.info - Amnesty International's campaign against internet repression * Organization of American States - Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression * Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe - Representative on Freedom of the Media * African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights - Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression in Africa * UNESCO - Programme on Freedom of Expression * FREEMUSE - Freedom of Musical Expression * Ringmar, Erik A Blogger's Manifesto: Free Speech and Censorship in the Age of the Internet (London: Anthem Press, 2007) * The BOBs - weblog award promoting freedom of speech * UN undermines freedom of expression, rapporteur to nail anti-Islamic speech * The Expressionist: India's track record * Worldwide Governance Indicators Worldwide ratings of country performances on Voice and Accountability and other governance dimensions from 1996 to present. * Free Speech Links - weblog linked to A Very Short Introduction to Free Speech [show] v â?¢ d â?¢ e Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [show] General principles Article 1: Freedom, Egalitarianism, Dignity and Brotherhood Article 2: Universality of rights [show] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 1 and 2: Right to freedom from discrimination · Article 3: Right to life, liberty and security of person · Article 4: Freedom from slavery · Article 5: Freedom from torture and cruel and unusual punishment · Article 6: Right to personhood · Article 7: Equality before the law · Article 8: Right to effective remedy from the law · Article 9: Freedom from arbitrary arrest, detention and exile · Article 10: Right to a fair trial · Article 11.1: Presumption of innocence · Article 11.2: Prohibition of retrospective law · Article 12: Right to privacy · Article 13: Freedom of movement · Article 14: Right of asylum · Article 15: Right to a nationality · Article 16: Right to marriage and family life · Article 17: Right to property · Article 18: Freedom of thought, conscience and religion · Article 19: Freedom of opinion and expression · Article 20.1: Freedom of assembly · Article 20.2: Freedom of association · Article 21.1: Right to participation in government · Article 21.2: Right of equal access to public office · Article 21.3: Right to universal suffrage [show] International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Article 1 and 2: Right to freedom from discrimination · Article 22: Right to social security · Article 23.1: Right to work · Article 23.2: Right to equal pay for equal work · Article 23.3: Right to just remuneration · Article 23.4: Right to join a trade union · Article 24: Right to rest and leisure · Article 25.1: Right to an adequate standard of living · Article 25.2: Right to special care and assistance for mothers and children · Article 26.1: Right to education · Article 26.2: Human rights education · Article 26.3: Right to choice of education · Article 27.1: Right to participate in culture · Article 27.2: Right to intellectual property [show] Context, limitations and duties Article 28: Social order · Article 29.1: Social responsibility · Article 29.2: Limitations of human rights · Article 29.3: The supremacy of the purposes and principles of the United Nations Article 30: Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein. Category:Human rights · Human rights portal [show] v â?¢ d â?¢ e Particular human rights
Rugian Member	Thu Sep 10 21:41:24 Hot Rod, I'm honestly curious. Do you think that a lawyer in a certain field knows about every single judicial decision in a state he doesn't practice in?
Hot Rod Member	Thu Sep 10 21:44:29 Why would he?
Rugian Member	Thu Sep 10 21:47:49 Hell if I know, but you suggested that law experts should know every judicial decision in the history of all 50 states in your OP.
Hot Rod Member	Thu Sep 10 21:58:55 No, I did not. Judge Napolitano has a research staff that helps him dig up that kind of stuff when he goes on TV to talk about it. It is his job to either know, or to find out the truth before he reports on it.
Rugian Member	Thu Sep 10 22:02:26 I don't care what that fat fuck judge thinks. You said that OBAMA should have known about some judicial decision in the state of California.
Hot Rod Member	Thu Sep 10 22:14:51 No, I said he should know that depriving illegals of benefits available to everyone else is unconstitutional because he taught Constitutional Law at Columbia University. If you want to go a step farther, the committee that wrote the particular version Obama referred to should have known because they probably have at least 50 law clerks on their staff to do that kind of research. So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law or you have a President who either doesn't know the subject he taught to college law students or he does not know the Bill he is talking about, assuming the committee is on the ball, or you have a President who stood up in front of a Joint Session of Congress and The American People and told a bald faced lie. You figure it out.
Aeros Member	Thu Sep 10 22:16:51 Its not lie, because the Law will say Illegals cannot sign up for the Public option. Rod, they already get health care. Federal Law prohibits Emergency Rooms from turning ANYONE away.
Hot Rod Member	Thu Sep 10 22:23:19 We are talking about *HEALTH INSURANCE.* If a government run health insurance plan passes in an form, the government will be Constitutionally obligated to make it available to illegal aliens.
Hot Rod Member	Thu Sep 10 22:26:05 See Aeros, you are so fucking stupid you can't even stay on subject.
Rugian Member	Thu Sep 10 22:31:57 "So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law" From your version of events, this particular case only reached the 9th Circuit. Common law precedents formed in one circuit have no explicit precedence in other circuits, so no, this was not the law in New York or any of the states not under the jurisdiction of the 9th. In short, you're either full of shit or, again, you believe that all law experts should be familiar with every single judicial case that has ever taken place in all 50 states.
Hot Rod Member	Thu Sep 10 22:45:54 It was heard on appeal and the appeals court upheld the lower court. California appealed to The United States Supreme Court who refuse to hear it. Now I don't know why they refused to hear it, but my guess would be they had already made a similar ruling when they said that illegals were entitled to Social Security. Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us.
roland Member	Thu Sep 10 22:49:05 HR is quite a mind reader.
roland Member	Thu Sep 10 22:50:44 Especially when he declared that no one can show GWB lied because no one can read his mind. Now, HR is claiming he can read BHO's mind.
Rugian Member	Thu Sep 10 22:52:43 "Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us." I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? I wouldn't blame him; most lawyers and legal experts focus on common law within their own spheres of influence. For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York, instead of somewhere like Alabama or, hell, even California. Opponents of health reform should be focusing on the negatives of the bill. They should not be obsessing over and trying to pick apart every little detail of a speech that in the end was little more than grandstanding.
Hrothgar Member	Thu Sep 10 22:57:30 There is a time and place to discuss disagreements over what the President has said. During the middle of his speech is not the place. That guy is not a hero. He's a loud mouth and showed a distinct lack of respect for his country's leader. For over 225 years our leaders have managed for the vast majority of the time keep debate and arguments civil. They have understood that the other political party is a fellow American opponent, not an enemy. It will be better off for us all if it stays that way. The outrageous extremists on the left and right need to be slapped down when they start getting out of hand and making thing uncivil.
Hot Rod Member	Thu Sep 10 23:30:44 Rugian - I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. Rugian - For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York... LOL, why would someone whose job it is to teach Constitutional Law even consider teaching New York Common Law to their students. I swear you are just as stupid as roland.
Rugian Member	Thu Sep 10 23:37:17 Ugh, this is headache inducing. Do you even know the most basic concepts of law? From the standpoint of common law interpretations of Constitutional law, you obviously look at USSC rulings first. But then you also look at how lower level courts interpret Constitutional law in the jurisdiction that you're likely to practice law in. This is important because depending on what circuit your area falls under, you can have vastly different common law precedents regarding Constitutional law interpretations in effect. Goddamn, I try to reasonably point something out to you and you make it impossible. You truly are a gifted troll Hot Rod.
Rugian Member	Thu Sep 10 23:38:48 So basically, if a district or circuit court makes a precedent-establishing ruling on an aspect of Constitutional law in your area and it never reaches the Supreme Court, you need to know about that "local" ruling. Please don't argue against this, it is practically guaranteed to make you look stupid if you do.
Rugian Member	Thu Sep 10 23:43:39 Taking the New York example, someone going to Columbia and planning to practice or teach Constitutional law in New York would spend a disproportionate amount of time looking at 2nd Circuit cases, in comparison to all other circuits. Get it now?
Rugian Member	Thu Sep 10 23:49:45 Oh, and just to hammer the point home and to be explicit as possible, 2nd Circuit rulings on cases that related to the application of Constitutional law in a particular matter and that were not reviewed by the Supreme Court are examples of the "common law existing in New York" that are relevant to legal experts of Constitutional law. Good night Rod. When I get up in 7 hours I expect to see that you have accepted this and moved on.
Hot Rod Member	Thu Sep 10 23:52:54 Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change. The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and inferior courts. The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one which courts can and do ignore occasionally. In other words, when the Supreme Court decided the case of allowing Social Security to illegal aliens, there was no need to hear further cases concerning benefits for illegals. "The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change." You cannot tell me that Obama is totally unaware of the Supreme Court decision concerning illegals and Social Security. Now, you go research it and if you can prove me wrong, I will certainly listen. Beyond that, I don't give a fuck what you think.
Rugian Member	Fri Sep 11 00:01:20 The USSC made no decision concerning illegals. You seem to be woefully uneducated about how precedent is set. When the USSC refuses to hear a case, as it did in this instance, it is not saying "we affirm the decision of the lower court and establish binding precedent on all lower courts in the country." It is instead saying "we refuse to either affirm or overturn the decision of the lower court. The lower court's decision is binding precedent within its own jurisdiction but is not binding anywhere else." Please learn the basics of how common law works.
Rugian Member	Fri Sep 11 00:03:20 In other words, your quote about stare decisis doesn't apply. "Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority)" That's where your example fails. By refusing to hear the case, no decision was made by the USSC.
Rugian Member	Fri Sep 11 00:07:45 Does it burn you to know that someone a third of your age knows so much more about the system of law that has been used to govern you for the better part of a century than you do?
Ninja Member	Fri Sep 11 00:57:57 "It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. " Except that if he didn't even hear about it, it isn't a lie because he did not willfully know that it would be overturned (even if you weren't blowing smoke out your ass). How can you be so fucking old yet have no fucking clue about the basics of the court system? Are you senile or just a fucking retard?
president bush Member	Fri Sep 11 06:00:03 lol
Hot Rod Member	Fri Sep 11 06:46:23 As usual you fucking liberals don't have the brains to read what I posted so you can go fuck yourselves. I would rather argue with a fucking iron ball, it would be far more intelligent that a stupid assed liberal.
achhnji New Member	Fri Sep 11 10:09:11 elcome to the Utopia Forums! The current time is Fri Sep 11 10:08:29 2009 , You have 0 new messages. Chat on the IRC server here Utopia Talk / Politics / Regarding The *HERO* That Shouted "lie" Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:23:22 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us? roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:08:33 "Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. " The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:10:31 That really pxss off the Americans who wanted mandatory sex change with the illegals. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 20:42:10 ttt Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:41:24 Hot Rod, I'm honestly curious. Do you think that a lawyer in a certain field knows about every single judicial decision in a state he doesn't practice in? Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:44:29 Why would he? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:47:49 Hell if I know, but you suggested that law experts should know every judicial decision in the history of all 50 states in your OP. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:58:55 No, I did not. Judge Napolitano has a research staff that helps him dig up that kind of stuff when he goes on TV to talk about it. It is his job to either know, or to find out the truth before he reports on it. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:02:26 I don't care what that fat fuck judge thinks. You said that OBAMA should have known about some judicial decision in the state of California. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:14:51 No, I said he should know that depriving illegals of benefits available to everyone else is unconstitutional because he taught Constitutional Law at Columbia University. If you want to go a step farther, the committee that wrote the particular version Obama referred to should have known because they probably have at least 50 law clerks on their staff to do that kind of research. So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law or you have a President who either doesn't know the subject he taught to college law students or he does not know the Bill he is talking about, assuming the committee is on the ball, or you have a President who stood up in front of a Joint Session of Congress and The American People and told a bald faced lie. You figure it out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 22:16:51 Its not lie, because the Law will say Illegals cannot sign up for the Public option. Rod, they already get health care. Federal Law prohibits Emergency Rooms from turning ANYONE away. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:23:19 We are talking about *HEALTH INSURANCE.* If a government run health insurance plan passes in an form, the government will be Constitutionally obligated to make it available to illegal aliens. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:26:05 See Aeros, you are so fucking stupid you can't even stay on subject. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:31:57 "So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law" From your version of events, this particular case only reached the 9th Circuit. Common law precedents formed in one circuit have no explicit precedence in other circuits, so no, this was not the law in New York or any of the states not under the jurisdiction of the 9th. In short, you're either full of shit or, again, you believe that all law experts should be familiar with every single judicial case that has ever taken place in all 50 states. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:45:54 It was heard on appeal and the appeals court upheld the lower court. California appealed to The United States Supreme Court who refuse to hear it. Now I don't know why they refused to hear it, but my guess would be they had already made a similar ruling when they said that illegals were entitled to Social Security. Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:49:05 HR is quite a mind reader. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:50:44 Especially when he declared that no one can show GWB lied because no one can read his mind. Now, HR is claiming he can read BHO's mind. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:52:43 "Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us." I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? I wouldn't blame him; most lawyers and legal experts focus on common law within their own spheres of influence. For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York, instead of somewhere like Alabama or, hell, even California. Opponents of health reform should be focusing on the negatives of the bill. They should not be obsessing over and trying to pick apart every little detail of a speech that in the end was little more than grandstanding. Hrothgar Member Thu Sep 10 22:57:30 There is a time and place to discuss disagreements over what the President has said. During the middle of his speech is not the place. That guy is not a hero. He's a loud mouth and showed a distinct lack of respect for his country's leader. For over 225 years our leaders have managed for the vast majority of the time keep debate and arguments civil. They have understood that the other political party is a fellow American opponent, not an enemy. It will be better off for us all if it stays that way. The outrageous extremists on the left and right need to be slapped down when they start getting out of hand and making thing uncivil. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:30:44 Rugian - I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. Rugian - For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York... LOL, why would someone whose job it is to teach Constitutional Law even consider teaching New York Common Law to their students. I swear you are just as stupid as roland. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:37:17 Ugh, this is headache inducing. Do you even know the most basic concepts of law? From the standpoint of common law interpretations of Constitutional law, you obviously look at USSC rulings first. But then you also look at how lower level courts interpret Constitutional law in the jurisdiction that you're likely to practice law in. This is important because depending on what circuit your area falls under, you can have vastly different common law precedents regarding Constitutional law interpretations in effect. Goddamn, I try to reasonably point something out to you and you make it impossible. You truly are a gifted troll Hot Rod. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:38:48 So basically, if a district or circuit court makes a precedent-establishing ruling on an aspect of Constitutional law in your area and it never reaches the Supreme Court, you need to know about that "local" ruling. Please don't argue against this, it is practically guaranteed to make you look stupid if you do. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:43:39 Taking the New York example, someone going to Columbia and planning to practice or teach Constitutional law in New York would spend a disproportionate amount of time looking at 2nd Circuit cases, in comparison to all other circuits. Get it now? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:49:45 Oh, and just to hammer the point home and to be explicit as possible, 2nd Circuit rulings on cases that related to the application of Constitutional law in a particular matter and that were not reviewed by the Supreme Court are examples of the "common law existing in New York" that are relevant to legal experts of Constitutional law. Good night Rod. When I get up in 7 hours I expect to see that you have accepted this and moved on. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:52:54 Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change. The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and inferior courts. The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one which courts can and do ignore occasionally. In other words, when the Supreme Court decided the case of allowing Social Security to illegal aliens, there was no need to hear further cases concerning benefits for illegals. "The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change." You cannot tell me that Obama is totally unaware of the Supreme Court decision concerning illegals and Social Security. Now, you go research it and if you can prove me wrong, I will certainly listen. Beyond that, I don't give a fuck what you think. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:01:20 The USSC made no decision concerning illegals. You seem to be woefully uneducated about how precedent is set. When the USSC refuses to hear a case, as it did in this instance, it is not saying "we affirm the decision of the lower court and establish binding precedent on all lower courts in the country." It is instead saying "we refuse to either affirm or overturn the decision of the lower court. The lower court's decision is binding precedent within its own jurisdiction but is not binding anywhere else." Please learn the basics of how common law works. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:03:20 In other words, your quote about stare decisis doesn't apply. "Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority)" That's where your example fails. By refusing to hear the case, no decision was made by the USSC. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:07:45 Does it burn you to know that someone a third of your age knows so much more about the system of law that has been used to govern you for the better part of a century than you do? Ninja Member Fri Sep 11 00:57:57 "It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. " Except that if he didn't even hear about it, it isn't a lie because he did not willfully know that it would be overturned (even if you weren't blowing smoke out your ass). How can you be so fucking old yet have no fucking clue about the basics of the court system? Are you senile or just a fucking retard? president bush Member Fri Sep 11 06:00:03 lol Hot Rod Member Fri Sep 11 06:46:23 As usual you fucking liberals don't have the brains to read what I posted so you can go fuck yourselves. I would rather argue with a fucking iron ball, it would be far more intelligent that a stupid assed liberal.
achhnji Member	Fri Sep 11 10:09:13 elcome to the Utopia Forums! The current time is Fri Sep 11 10:08:29 2009 , You have 0 new messages. Chat on the IRC server here Utopia Talk / Politics / Regarding The *HERO* That Shouted "lie" Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:23:22 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us? roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:08:33 "Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. " The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:10:31 That really pxss off the Americans who wanted mandatory sex change with the illegals. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 20:42:10 ttt Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:41:24 Hot Rod, I'm honestly curious. Do you think that a lawyer in a certain field knows about every single judicial decision in a state he doesn't practice in? Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:44:29 Why would he? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:47:49 Hell if I know, but you suggested that law experts should know every judicial decision in the history of all 50 states in your OP. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:58:55 No, I did not. Judge Napolitano has a research staff that helps him dig up that kind of stuff when he goes on TV to talk about it. It is his job to either know, or to find out the truth before he reports on it. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:02:26 I don't care what that fat fuck judge thinks. You said that OBAMA should have known about some judicial decision in the state of California. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:14:51 No, I said he should know that depriving illegals of benefits available to everyone else is unconstitutional because he taught Constitutional Law at Columbia University. If you want to go a step farther, the committee that wrote the particular version Obama referred to should have known because they probably have at least 50 law clerks on their staff to do that kind of research. So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law or you have a President who either doesn't know the subject he taught to college law students or he does not know the Bill he is talking about, assuming the committee is on the ball, or you have a President who stood up in front of a Joint Session of Congress and The American People and told a bald faced lie. You figure it out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 22:16:51 Its not lie, because the Law will say Illegals cannot sign up for the Public option. Rod, they already get health care. Federal Law prohibits Emergency Rooms from turning ANYONE away. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:23:19 We are talking about *HEALTH INSURANCE.* If a government run health insurance plan passes in an form, the government will be Constitutionally obligated to make it available to illegal aliens. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:26:05 See Aeros, you are so fucking stupid you can't even stay on subject. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:31:57 "So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law" From your version of events, this particular case only reached the 9th Circuit. Common law precedents formed in one circuit have no explicit precedence in other circuits, so no, this was not the law in New York or any of the states not under the jurisdiction of the 9th. In short, you're either full of shit or, again, you believe that all law experts should be familiar with every single judicial case that has ever taken place in all 50 states. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:45:54 It was heard on appeal and the appeals court upheld the lower court. California appealed to The United States Supreme Court who refuse to hear it. Now I don't know why they refused to hear it, but my guess would be they had already made a similar ruling when they said that illegals were entitled to Social Security. Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:49:05 HR is quite a mind reader. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:50:44 Especially when he declared that no one can show GWB lied because no one can read his mind. Now, HR is claiming he can read BHO's mind. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:52:43 "Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us." I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? I wouldn't blame him; most lawyers and legal experts focus on common law within their own spheres of influence. For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York, instead of somewhere like Alabama or, hell, even California. Opponents of health reform should be focusing on the negatives of the bill. They should not be obsessing over and trying to pick apart every little detail of a speech that in the end was little more than grandstanding. Hrothgar Member Thu Sep 10 22:57:30 There is a time and place to discuss disagreements over what the President has said. During the middle of his speech is not the place. That guy is not a hero. He's a loud mouth and showed a distinct lack of respect for his country's leader. For over 225 years our leaders have managed for the vast majority of the time keep debate and arguments civil. They have understood that the other political party is a fellow American opponent, not an enemy. It will be better off for us all if it stays that way. The outrageous extremists on the left and right need to be slapped down when they start getting out of hand and making thing uncivil. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:30:44 Rugian - I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. Rugian - For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York... LOL, why would someone whose job it is to teach Constitutional Law even consider teaching New York Common Law to their students. I swear you are just as stupid as roland. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:37:17 Ugh, this is headache inducing. Do you even know the most basic concepts of law? From the standpoint of common law interpretations of Constitutional law, you obviously look at USSC rulings first. But then you also look at how lower level courts interpret Constitutional law in the jurisdiction that you're likely to practice law in. This is important because depending on what circuit your area falls under, you can have vastly different common law precedents regarding Constitutional law interpretations in effect. Goddamn, I try to reasonably point something out to you and you make it impossible. You truly are a gifted troll Hot Rod. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:38:48 So basically, if a district or circuit court makes a precedent-establishing ruling on an aspect of Constitutional law in your area and it never reaches the Supreme Court, you need to know about that "local" ruling. Please don't argue against this, it is practically guaranteed to make you look stupid if you do. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:43:39 Taking the New York example, someone going to Columbia and planning to practice or teach Constitutional law in New York would spend a disproportionate amount of time looking at 2nd Circuit cases, in comparison to all other circuits. Get it now? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:49:45 Oh, and just to hammer the point home and to be explicit as possible, 2nd Circuit rulings on cases that related to the application of Constitutional law in a particular matter and that were not reviewed by the Supreme Court are examples of the "common law existing in New York" that are relevant to legal experts of Constitutional law. Good night Rod. When I get up in 7 hours I expect to see that you have accepted this and moved on. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:52:54 Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change. The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and inferior courts. The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one which courts can and do ignore occasionally. In other words, when the Supreme Court decided the case of allowing Social Security to illegal aliens, there was no need to hear further cases concerning benefits for illegals. "The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change." You cannot tell me that Obama is totally unaware of the Supreme Court decision concerning illegals and Social Security. Now, you go research it and if you can prove me wrong, I will certainly listen. Beyond that, I don't give a fuck what you think. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:01:20 The USSC made no decision concerning illegals. You seem to be woefully uneducated about how precedent is set. When the USSC refuses to hear a case, as it did in this instance, it is not saying "we affirm the decision of the lower court and establish binding precedent on all lower courts in the country." It is instead saying "we refuse to either affirm or overturn the decision of the lower court. The lower court's decision is binding precedent within its own jurisdiction but is not binding anywhere else." Please learn the basics of how common law works. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:03:20 In other words, your quote about stare decisis doesn't apply. "Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority)" That's where your example fails. By refusing to hear the case, no decision was made by the USSC. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:07:45 Does it burn you to know that someone a third of your age knows so much more about the system of law that has been used to govern you for the better part of a century than you do? Ninja Member Fri Sep 11 00:57:57 "It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. " Except that if he didn't even hear about it, it isn't a lie because he did not willfully know that it would be overturned (even if you weren't blowing smoke out your ass). How can you be so fucking old yet have no fucking clue about the basics of the court system? Are you senile or just a fucking retard? president bush Member Fri Sep 11 06:00:03 lol Hot Rod Member Fri Sep 11 06:46:23 As usual you fucking liberals don't have the brains to read what I posted so you can go fuck yourselves. I would rather argue with a fucking iron ball, it would be far more intelligent that a stupid assed liberal.
achhnji Member	Fri Sep 11 10:09:14 elcome to the Utopia Forums! The current time is Fri Sep 11 10:08:29 2009 , You have 0 new messages. Chat on the IRC server here Utopia Talk / Politics / Regarding The *HERO* That Shouted "lie" Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:23:22 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us? roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:08:33 "Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. " The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:10:31 That really pxss off the Americans who wanted mandatory sex change with the illegals. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 20:42:10 ttt Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:41:24 Hot Rod, I'm honestly curious. Do you think that a lawyer in a certain field knows about every single judicial decision in a state he doesn't practice in? Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:44:29 Why would he? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:47:49 Hell if I know, but you suggested that law experts should know every judicial decision in the history of all 50 states in your OP. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:58:55 No, I did not. Judge Napolitano has a research staff that helps him dig up that kind of stuff when he goes on TV to talk about it. It is his job to either know, or to find out the truth before he reports on it. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:02:26 I don't care what that fat fuck judge thinks. You said that OBAMA should have known about some judicial decision in the state of California. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:14:51 No, I said he should know that depriving illegals of benefits available to everyone else is unconstitutional because he taught Constitutional Law at Columbia University. If you want to go a step farther, the committee that wrote the particular version Obama referred to should have known because they probably have at least 50 law clerks on their staff to do that kind of research. So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law or you have a President who either doesn't know the subject he taught to college law students or he does not know the Bill he is talking about, assuming the committee is on the ball, or you have a President who stood up in front of a Joint Session of Congress and The American People and told a bald faced lie. You figure it out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 22:16:51 Its not lie, because the Law will say Illegals cannot sign up for the Public option. Rod, they already get health care. Federal Law prohibits Emergency Rooms from turning ANYONE away. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:23:19 We are talking about *HEALTH INSURANCE.* If a government run health insurance plan passes in an form, the government will be Constitutionally obligated to make it available to illegal aliens. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:26:05 See Aeros, you are so fucking stupid you can't even stay on subject. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:31:57 "So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law" From your version of events, this particular case only reached the 9th Circuit. Common law precedents formed in one circuit have no explicit precedence in other circuits, so no, this was not the law in New York or any of the states not under the jurisdiction of the 9th. In short, you're either full of shit or, again, you believe that all law experts should be familiar with every single judicial case that has ever taken place in all 50 states. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:45:54 It was heard on appeal and the appeals court upheld the lower court. California appealed to The United States Supreme Court who refuse to hear it. Now I don't know why they refused to hear it, but my guess would be they had already made a similar ruling when they said that illegals were entitled to Social Security. Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:49:05 HR is quite a mind reader. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:50:44 Especially when he declared that no one can show GWB lied because no one can read his mind. Now, HR is claiming he can read BHO's mind. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:52:43 "Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us." I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? I wouldn't blame him; most lawyers and legal experts focus on common law within their own spheres of influence. For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York, instead of somewhere like Alabama or, hell, even California. Opponents of health reform should be focusing on the negatives of the bill. They should not be obsessing over and trying to pick apart every little detail of a speech that in the end was little more than grandstanding. Hrothgar Member Thu Sep 10 22:57:30 There is a time and place to discuss disagreements over what the President has said. During the middle of his speech is not the place. That guy is not a hero. He's a loud mouth and showed a distinct lack of respect for his country's leader. For over 225 years our leaders have managed for the vast majority of the time keep debate and arguments civil. They have understood that the other political party is a fellow American opponent, not an enemy. It will be better off for us all if it stays that way. The outrageous extremists on the left and right need to be slapped down when they start getting out of hand and making thing uncivil. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:30:44 Rugian - I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. Rugian - For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York... LOL, why would someone whose job it is to teach Constitutional Law even consider teaching New York Common Law to their students. I swear you are just as stupid as roland. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:37:17 Ugh, this is headache inducing. Do you even know the most basic concepts of law? From the standpoint of common law interpretations of Constitutional law, you obviously look at USSC rulings first. But then you also look at how lower level courts interpret Constitutional law in the jurisdiction that you're likely to practice law in. This is important because depending on what circuit your area falls under, you can have vastly different common law precedents regarding Constitutional law interpretations in effect. Goddamn, I try to reasonably point something out to you and you make it impossible. You truly are a gifted troll Hot Rod. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:38:48 So basically, if a district or circuit court makes a precedent-establishing ruling on an aspect of Constitutional law in your area and it never reaches the Supreme Court, you need to know about that "local" ruling. Please don't argue against this, it is practically guaranteed to make you look stupid if you do. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:43:39 Taking the New York example, someone going to Columbia and planning to practice or teach Constitutional law in New York would spend a disproportionate amount of time looking at 2nd Circuit cases, in comparison to all other circuits. Get it now? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:49:45 Oh, and just to hammer the point home and to be explicit as possible, 2nd Circuit rulings on cases that related to the application of Constitutional law in a particular matter and that were not reviewed by the Supreme Court are examples of the "common law existing in New York" that are relevant to legal experts of Constitutional law. Good night Rod. When I get up in 7 hours I expect to see that you have accepted this and moved on. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:52:54 Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change. The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and inferior courts. The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one which courts can and do ignore occasionally. In other words, when the Supreme Court decided the case of allowing Social Security to illegal aliens, there was no need to hear further cases concerning benefits for illegals. "The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change." You cannot tell me that Obama is totally unaware of the Supreme Court decision concerning illegals and Social Security. Now, you go research it and if you can prove me wrong, I will certainly listen. Beyond that, I don't give a fuck what you think. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:01:20 The USSC made no decision concerning illegals. You seem to be woefully uneducated about how precedent is set. When the USSC refuses to hear a case, as it did in this instance, it is not saying "we affirm the decision of the lower court and establish binding precedent on all lower courts in the country." It is instead saying "we refuse to either affirm or overturn the decision of the lower court. The lower court's decision is binding precedent within its own jurisdiction but is not binding anywhere else." Please learn the basics of how common law works. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:03:20 In other words, your quote about stare decisis doesn't apply. "Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority)" That's where your example fails. By refusing to hear the case, no decision was made by the USSC. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:07:45 Does it burn you to know that someone a third of your age knows so much more about the system of law that has been used to govern you for the better part of a century than you do? Ninja Member Fri Sep 11 00:57:57 "It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. " Except that if he didn't even hear about it, it isn't a lie because he did not willfully know that it would be overturned (even if you weren't blowing smoke out your ass). How can you be so fucking old yet have no fucking clue about the basics of the court system? Are you senile or just a fucking retard? president bush Member Fri Sep 11 06:00:03 lol Hot Rod Member Fri Sep 11 06:46:23 As usual you fucking liberals don't have the brains to read what I posted so you can go fuck yourselves. I would rather argue with a fucking iron ball, it would be far more intelligent that a stupid assed liberal.
achhnji Member	Fri Sep 11 10:09:14 elcome to the Utopia Forums! The current time is Fri Sep 11 10:08:29 2009 , You have 0 new messages. Chat on the IRC server here Utopia Talk / Politics / Regarding The *HERO* That Shouted "lie" Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:23:22 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us? roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:08:33 "Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. " The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:10:31 That really pxss off the Americans who wanted mandatory sex change with the illegals. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 20:42:10 ttt Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:41:24 Hot Rod, I'm honestly curious. Do you think that a lawyer in a certain field knows about every single judicial decision in a state he doesn't practice in? Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:44:29 Why would he? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:47:49 Hell if I know, but you suggested that law experts should know every judicial decision in the history of all 50 states in your OP. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:58:55 No, I did not. Judge Napolitano has a research staff that helps him dig up that kind of stuff when he goes on TV to talk about it. It is his job to either know, or to find out the truth before he reports on it. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:02:26 I don't care what that fat fuck judge thinks. You said that OBAMA should have known about some judicial decision in the state of California. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:14:51 No, I said he should know that depriving illegals of benefits available to everyone else is unconstitutional because he taught Constitutional Law at Columbia University. If you want to go a step farther, the committee that wrote the particular version Obama referred to should have known because they probably have at least 50 law clerks on their staff to do that kind of research. So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law or you have a President who either doesn't know the subject he taught to college law students or he does not know the Bill he is talking about, assuming the committee is on the ball, or you have a President who stood up in front of a Joint Session of Congress and The American People and told a bald faced lie. You figure it out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 22:16:51 Its not lie, because the Law will say Illegals cannot sign up for the Public option. Rod, they already get health care. Federal Law prohibits Emergency Rooms from turning ANYONE away. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:23:19 We are talking about *HEALTH INSURANCE.* If a government run health insurance plan passes in an form, the government will be Constitutionally obligated to make it available to illegal aliens. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:26:05 See Aeros, you are so fucking stupid you can't even stay on subject. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:31:57 "So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law" From your version of events, this particular case only reached the 9th Circuit. Common law precedents formed in one circuit have no explicit precedence in other circuits, so no, this was not the law in New York or any of the states not under the jurisdiction of the 9th. In short, you're either full of shit or, again, you believe that all law experts should be familiar with every single judicial case that has ever taken place in all 50 states. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:45:54 It was heard on appeal and the appeals court upheld the lower court. California appealed to The United States Supreme Court who refuse to hear it. Now I don't know why they refused to hear it, but my guess would be they had already made a similar ruling when they said that illegals were entitled to Social Security. Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:49:05 HR is quite a mind reader. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:50:44 Especially when he declared that no one can show GWB lied because no one can read his mind. Now, HR is claiming he can read BHO's mind. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:52:43 "Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us." I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? I wouldn't blame him; most lawyers and legal experts focus on common law within their own spheres of influence. For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York, instead of somewhere like Alabama or, hell, even California. Opponents of health reform should be focusing on the negatives of the bill. They should not be obsessing over and trying to pick apart every little detail of a speech that in the end was little more than grandstanding. Hrothgar Member Thu Sep 10 22:57:30 There is a time and place to discuss disagreements over what the President has said. During the middle of his speech is not the place. That guy is not a hero. He's a loud mouth and showed a distinct lack of respect for his country's leader. For over 225 years our leaders have managed for the vast majority of the time keep debate and arguments civil. They have understood that the other political party is a fellow American opponent, not an enemy. It will be better off for us all if it stays that way. The outrageous extremists on the left and right need to be slapped down when they start getting out of hand and making thing uncivil. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:30:44 Rugian - I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. Rugian - For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York... LOL, why would someone whose job it is to teach Constitutional Law even consider teaching New York Common Law to their students. I swear you are just as stupid as roland. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:37:17 Ugh, this is headache inducing. Do you even know the most basic concepts of law? From the standpoint of common law interpretations of Constitutional law, you obviously look at USSC rulings first. But then you also look at how lower level courts interpret Constitutional law in the jurisdiction that you're likely to practice law in. This is important because depending on what circuit your area falls under, you can have vastly different common law precedents regarding Constitutional law interpretations in effect. Goddamn, I try to reasonably point something out to you and you make it impossible. You truly are a gifted troll Hot Rod. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:38:48 So basically, if a district or circuit court makes a precedent-establishing ruling on an aspect of Constitutional law in your area and it never reaches the Supreme Court, you need to know about that "local" ruling. Please don't argue against this, it is practically guaranteed to make you look stupid if you do. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:43:39 Taking the New York example, someone going to Columbia and planning to practice or teach Constitutional law in New York would spend a disproportionate amount of time looking at 2nd Circuit cases, in comparison to all other circuits. Get it now? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:49:45 Oh, and just to hammer the point home and to be explicit as possible, 2nd Circuit rulings on cases that related to the application of Constitutional law in a particular matter and that were not reviewed by the Supreme Court are examples of the "common law existing in New York" that are relevant to legal experts of Constitutional law. Good night Rod. When I get up in 7 hours I expect to see that you have accepted this and moved on. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:52:54 Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change. The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and inferior courts. The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one which courts can and do ignore occasionally. In other words, when the Supreme Court decided the case of allowing Social Security to illegal aliens, there was no need to hear further cases concerning benefits for illegals. "The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change." You cannot tell me that Obama is totally unaware of the Supreme Court decision concerning illegals and Social Security. Now, you go research it and if you can prove me wrong, I will certainly listen. Beyond that, I don't give a fuck what you think. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:01:20 The USSC made no decision concerning illegals. You seem to be woefully uneducated about how precedent is set. When the USSC refuses to hear a case, as it did in this instance, it is not saying "we affirm the decision of the lower court and establish binding precedent on all lower courts in the country." It is instead saying "we refuse to either affirm or overturn the decision of the lower court. The lower court's decision is binding precedent within its own jurisdiction but is not binding anywhere else." Please learn the basics of how common law works. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:03:20 In other words, your quote about stare decisis doesn't apply. "Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority)" That's where your example fails. By refusing to hear the case, no decision was made by the USSC. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:07:45 Does it burn you to know that someone a third of your age knows so much more about the system of law that has been used to govern you for the better part of a century than you do? Ninja Member Fri Sep 11 00:57:57 "It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. " Except that if he didn't even hear about it, it isn't a lie because he did not willfully know that it would be overturned (even if you weren't blowing smoke out your ass). How can you be so fucking old yet have no fucking clue about the basics of the court system? Are you senile or just a fucking retard? president bush Member Fri Sep 11 06:00:03 lol Hot Rod Member Fri Sep 11 06:46:23 As usual you fucking liberals don't have the brains to read what I posted so you can go fuck yourselves. I would rather argue with a fucking iron ball, it would be far more intelligent that a stupid assed liberal.
achhnji Member	Fri Sep 11 10:09:14 elcome to the Utopia Forums! The current time is Fri Sep 11 10:08:29 2009 , You have 0 new messages. Chat on the IRC server here Utopia Talk / Politics / Regarding The *HERO* That Shouted "lie" Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:23:22 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us? roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:08:33 "Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. " The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:10:31 That really pxss off the Americans who wanted mandatory sex change with the illegals. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 20:42:10 ttt Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:41:24 Hot Rod, I'm honestly curious. Do you think that a lawyer in a certain field knows about every single judicial decision in a state he doesn't practice in? Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:44:29 Why would he? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:47:49 Hell if I know, but you suggested that law experts should know every judicial decision in the history of all 50 states in your OP. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:58:55 No, I did not. Judge Napolitano has a research staff that helps him dig up that kind of stuff when he goes on TV to talk about it. It is his job to either know, or to find out the truth before he reports on it. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:02:26 I don't care what that fat fuck judge thinks. You said that OBAMA should have known about some judicial decision in the state of California. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:14:51 No, I said he should know that depriving illegals of benefits available to everyone else is unconstitutional because he taught Constitutional Law at Columbia University. If you want to go a step farther, the committee that wrote the particular version Obama referred to should have known because they probably have at least 50 law clerks on their staff to do that kind of research. So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law or you have a President who either doesn't know the subject he taught to college law students or he does not know the Bill he is talking about, assuming the committee is on the ball, or you have a President who stood up in front of a Joint Session of Congress and The American People and told a bald faced lie. You figure it out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 22:16:51 Its not lie, because the Law will say Illegals cannot sign up for the Public option. Rod, they already get health care. Federal Law prohibits Emergency Rooms from turning ANYONE away. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:23:19 We are talking about *HEALTH INSURANCE.* If a government run health insurance plan passes in an form, the government will be Constitutionally obligated to make it available to illegal aliens. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:26:05 See Aeros, you are so fucking stupid you can't even stay on subject. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:31:57 "So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law" From your version of events, this particular case only reached the 9th Circuit. Common law precedents formed in one circuit have no explicit precedence in other circuits, so no, this was not the law in New York or any of the states not under the jurisdiction of the 9th. In short, you're either full of shit or, again, you believe that all law experts should be familiar with every single judicial case that has ever taken place in all 50 states. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:45:54 It was heard on appeal and the appeals court upheld the lower court. California appealed to The United States Supreme Court who refuse to hear it. Now I don't know why they refused to hear it, but my guess would be they had already made a similar ruling when they said that illegals were entitled to Social Security. Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:49:05 HR is quite a mind reader. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:50:44 Especially when he declared that no one can show GWB lied because no one can read his mind. Now, HR is claiming he can read BHO's mind. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:52:43 "Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us." I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? I wouldn't blame him; most lawyers and legal experts focus on common law within their own spheres of influence. For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York, instead of somewhere like Alabama or, hell, even California. Opponents of health reform should be focusing on the negatives of the bill. They should not be obsessing over and trying to pick apart every little detail of a speech that in the end was little more than grandstanding. Hrothgar Member Thu Sep 10 22:57:30 There is a time and place to discuss disagreements over what the President has said. During the middle of his speech is not the place. That guy is not a hero. He's a loud mouth and showed a distinct lack of respect for his country's leader. For over 225 years our leaders have managed for the vast majority of the time keep debate and arguments civil. They have understood that the other political party is a fellow American opponent, not an enemy. It will be better off for us all if it stays that way. The outrageous extremists on the left and right need to be slapped down when they start getting out of hand and making thing uncivil. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:30:44 Rugian - I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. Rugian - For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York... LOL, why would someone whose job it is to teach Constitutional Law even consider teaching New York Common Law to their students. I swear you are just as stupid as roland. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:37:17 Ugh, this is headache inducing. Do you even know the most basic concepts of law? From the standpoint of common law interpretations of Constitutional law, you obviously look at USSC rulings first. But then you also look at how lower level courts interpret Constitutional law in the jurisdiction that you're likely to practice law in. This is important because depending on what circuit your area falls under, you can have vastly different common law precedents regarding Constitutional law interpretations in effect. Goddamn, I try to reasonably point something out to you and you make it impossible. You truly are a gifted troll Hot Rod. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:38:48 So basically, if a district or circuit court makes a precedent-establishing ruling on an aspect of Constitutional law in your area and it never reaches the Supreme Court, you need to know about that "local" ruling. Please don't argue against this, it is practically guaranteed to make you look stupid if you do. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:43:39 Taking the New York example, someone going to Columbia and planning to practice or teach Constitutional law in New York would spend a disproportionate amount of time looking at 2nd Circuit cases, in comparison to all other circuits. Get it now? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:49:45 Oh, and just to hammer the point home and to be explicit as possible, 2nd Circuit rulings on cases that related to the application of Constitutional law in a particular matter and that were not reviewed by the Supreme Court are examples of the "common law existing in New York" that are relevant to legal experts of Constitutional law. Good night Rod. When I get up in 7 hours I expect to see that you have accepted this and moved on. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:52:54 Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change. The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and inferior courts. The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one which courts can and do ignore occasionally. In other words, when the Supreme Court decided the case of allowing Social Security to illegal aliens, there was no need to hear further cases concerning benefits for illegals. "The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change." You cannot tell me that Obama is totally unaware of the Supreme Court decision concerning illegals and Social Security. Now, you go research it and if you can prove me wrong, I will certainly listen. Beyond that, I don't give a fuck what you think. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:01:20 The USSC made no decision concerning illegals. You seem to be woefully uneducated about how precedent is set. When the USSC refuses to hear a case, as it did in this instance, it is not saying "we affirm the decision of the lower court and establish binding precedent on all lower courts in the country." It is instead saying "we refuse to either affirm or overturn the decision of the lower court. The lower court's decision is binding precedent within its own jurisdiction but is not binding anywhere else." Please learn the basics of how common law works. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:03:20 In other words, your quote about stare decisis doesn't apply. "Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority)" That's where your example fails. By refusing to hear the case, no decision was made by the USSC. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:07:45 Does it burn you to know that someone a third of your age knows so much more about the system of law that has been used to govern you for the better part of a century than you do? Ninja Member Fri Sep 11 00:57:57 "It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. " Except that if he didn't even hear about it, it isn't a lie because he did not willfully know that it would be overturned (even if you weren't blowing smoke out your ass). How can you be so fucking old yet have no fucking clue about the basics of the court system? Are you senile or just a fucking retard? president bush Member Fri Sep 11 06:00:03 lol Hot Rod Member Fri Sep 11 06:46:23 As usual you fucking liberals don't have the brains to read what I posted so you can go fuck yourselves. I would rather argue with a fucking iron ball, it would be far more intelligent that a stupid assed liberal.
achhnji Member	Fri Sep 11 10:09:15 elcome to the Utopia Forums! The current time is Fri Sep 11 10:08:29 2009 , You have 0 new messages. Chat on the IRC server here Utopia Talk / Politics / Regarding The *HERO* That Shouted "lie" Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:23:22 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us? roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:08:33 "Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. " The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:10:31 That really pxss off the Americans who wanted mandatory sex change with the illegals. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 20:42:10 ttt Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:41:24 Hot Rod, I'm honestly curious. Do you think that a lawyer in a certain field knows about every single judicial decision in a state he doesn't practice in? Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:44:29 Why would he? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:47:49 Hell if I know, but you suggested that law experts should know every judicial decision in the history of all 50 states in your OP. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:58:55 No, I did not. Judge Napolitano has a research staff that helps him dig up that kind of stuff when he goes on TV to talk about it. It is his job to either know, or to find out the truth before he reports on it. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:02:26 I don't care what that fat fuck judge thinks. You said that OBAMA should have known about some judicial decision in the state of California. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:14:51 No, I said he should know that depriving illegals of benefits available to everyone else is unconstitutional because he taught Constitutional Law at Columbia University. If you want to go a step farther, the committee that wrote the particular version Obama referred to should have known because they probably have at least 50 law clerks on their staff to do that kind of research. So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law or you have a President who either doesn't know the subject he taught to college law students or he does not know the Bill he is talking about, assuming the committee is on the ball, or you have a President who stood up in front of a Joint Session of Congress and The American People and told a bald faced lie. You figure it out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 22:16:51 Its not lie, because the Law will say Illegals cannot sign up for the Public option. Rod, they already get health care. Federal Law prohibits Emergency Rooms from turning ANYONE away. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:23:19 We are talking about *HEALTH INSURANCE.* If a government run health insurance plan passes in an form, the government will be Constitutionally obligated to make it available to illegal aliens. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:26:05 See Aeros, you are so fucking stupid you can't even stay on subject. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:31:57 "So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law" From your version of events, this particular case only reached the 9th Circuit. Common law precedents formed in one circuit have no explicit precedence in other circuits, so no, this was not the law in New York or any of the states not under the jurisdiction of the 9th. In short, you're either full of shit or, again, you believe that all law experts should be familiar with every single judicial case that has ever taken place in all 50 states. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:45:54 It was heard on appeal and the appeals court upheld the lower court. California appealed to The United States Supreme Court who refuse to hear it. Now I don't know why they refused to hear it, but my guess would be they had already made a similar ruling when they said that illegals were entitled to Social Security. Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:49:05 HR is quite a mind reader. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:50:44 Especially when he declared that no one can show GWB lied because no one can read his mind. Now, HR is claiming he can read BHO's mind. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:52:43 "Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us." I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? I wouldn't blame him; most lawyers and legal experts focus on common law within their own spheres of influence. For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York, instead of somewhere like Alabama or, hell, even California. Opponents of health reform should be focusing on the negatives of the bill. They should not be obsessing over and trying to pick apart every little detail of a speech that in the end was little more than grandstanding. Hrothgar Member Thu Sep 10 22:57:30 There is a time and place to discuss disagreements over what the President has said. During the middle of his speech is not the place. That guy is not a hero. He's a loud mouth and showed a distinct lack of respect for his country's leader. For over 225 years our leaders have managed for the vast majority of the time keep debate and arguments civil. They have understood that the other political party is a fellow American opponent, not an enemy. It will be better off for us all if it stays that way. The outrageous extremists on the left and right need to be slapped down when they start getting out of hand and making thing uncivil. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:30:44 Rugian - I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. Rugian - For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York... LOL, why would someone whose job it is to teach Constitutional Law even consider teaching New York Common Law to their students. I swear you are just as stupid as roland. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:37:17 Ugh, this is headache inducing. Do you even know the most basic concepts of law? From the standpoint of common law interpretations of Constitutional law, you obviously look at USSC rulings first. But then you also look at how lower level courts interpret Constitutional law in the jurisdiction that you're likely to practice law in. This is important because depending on what circuit your area falls under, you can have vastly different common law precedents regarding Constitutional law interpretations in effect. Goddamn, I try to reasonably point something out to you and you make it impossible. You truly are a gifted troll Hot Rod. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:38:48 So basically, if a district or circuit court makes a precedent-establishing ruling on an aspect of Constitutional law in your area and it never reaches the Supreme Court, you need to know about that "local" ruling. Please don't argue against this, it is practically guaranteed to make you look stupid if you do. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:43:39 Taking the New York example, someone going to Columbia and planning to practice or teach Constitutional law in New York would spend a disproportionate amount of time looking at 2nd Circuit cases, in comparison to all other circuits. Get it now? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:49:45 Oh, and just to hammer the point home and to be explicit as possible, 2nd Circuit rulings on cases that related to the application of Constitutional law in a particular matter and that were not reviewed by the Supreme Court are examples of the "common law existing in New York" that are relevant to legal experts of Constitutional law. Good night Rod. When I get up in 7 hours I expect to see that you have accepted this and moved on. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:52:54 Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change. The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and inferior courts. The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one which courts can and do ignore occasionally. In other words, when the Supreme Court decided the case of allowing Social Security to illegal aliens, there was no need to hear further cases concerning benefits for illegals. "The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change." You cannot tell me that Obama is totally unaware of the Supreme Court decision concerning illegals and Social Security. Now, you go research it and if you can prove me wrong, I will certainly listen. Beyond that, I don't give a fuck what you think. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:01:20 The USSC made no decision concerning illegals. You seem to be woefully uneducated about how precedent is set. When the USSC refuses to hear a case, as it did in this instance, it is not saying "we affirm the decision of the lower court and establish binding precedent on all lower courts in the country." It is instead saying "we refuse to either affirm or overturn the decision of the lower court. The lower court's decision is binding precedent within its own jurisdiction but is not binding anywhere else." Please learn the basics of how common law works. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:03:20 In other words, your quote about stare decisis doesn't apply. "Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority)" That's where your example fails. By refusing to hear the case, no decision was made by the USSC. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:07:45 Does it burn you to know that someone a third of your age knows so much more about the system of law that has been used to govern you for the better part of a century than you do? Ninja Member Fri Sep 11 00:57:57 "It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. " Except that if he didn't even hear about it, it isn't a lie because he did not willfully know that it would be overturned (even if you weren't blowing smoke out your ass). How can you be so fucking old yet have no fucking clue about the basics of the court system? Are you senile or just a fucking retard? president bush Member Fri Sep 11 06:00:03 lol Hot Rod Member Fri Sep 11 06:46:23 As usual you fucking liberals don't have the brains to read what I posted so you can go fuck yourselves. I would rather argue with a fucking iron ball, it would be far more intelligent that a stupid assed liberal.
achhnji Member	Fri Sep 11 10:09:15 elcome to the Utopia Forums! The current time is Fri Sep 11 10:08:29 2009 , You have 0 new messages. Chat on the IRC server here Utopia Talk / Politics / Regarding The *HERO* That Shouted "lie" Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:23:22 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us? roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:08:33 "Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. " The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:10:31 That really pxss off the Americans who wanted mandatory sex change with the illegals. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 20:42:10 ttt Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:41:24 Hot Rod, I'm honestly curious. Do you think that a lawyer in a certain field knows about every single judicial decision in a state he doesn't practice in? Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:44:29 Why would he? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:47:49 Hell if I know, but you suggested that law experts should know every judicial decision in the history of all 50 states in your OP. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:58:55 No, I did not. Judge Napolitano has a research staff that helps him dig up that kind of stuff when he goes on TV to talk about it. It is his job to either know, or to find out the truth before he reports on it. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:02:26 I don't care what that fat fuck judge thinks. You said that OBAMA should have known about some judicial decision in the state of California. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:14:51 No, I said he should know that depriving illegals of benefits available to everyone else is unconstitutional because he taught Constitutional Law at Columbia University. If you want to go a step farther, the committee that wrote the particular version Obama referred to should have known because they probably have at least 50 law clerks on their staff to do that kind of research. So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law or you have a President who either doesn't know the subject he taught to college law students or he does not know the Bill he is talking about, assuming the committee is on the ball, or you have a President who stood up in front of a Joint Session of Congress and The American People and told a bald faced lie. You figure it out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 22:16:51 Its not lie, because the Law will say Illegals cannot sign up for the Public option. Rod, they already get health care. Federal Law prohibits Emergency Rooms from turning ANYONE away. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:23:19 We are talking about *HEALTH INSURANCE.* If a government run health insurance plan passes in an form, the government will be Constitutionally obligated to make it available to illegal aliens. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:26:05 See Aeros, you are so fucking stupid you can't even stay on subject. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:31:57 "So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law" From your version of events, this particular case only reached the 9th Circuit. Common law precedents formed in one circuit have no explicit precedence in other circuits, so no, this was not the law in New York or any of the states not under the jurisdiction of the 9th. In short, you're either full of shit or, again, you believe that all law experts should be familiar with every single judicial case that has ever taken place in all 50 states. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:45:54 It was heard on appeal and the appeals court upheld the lower court. California appealed to The United States Supreme Court who refuse to hear it. Now I don't know why they refused to hear it, but my guess would be they had already made a similar ruling when they said that illegals were entitled to Social Security. Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:49:05 HR is quite a mind reader. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:50:44 Especially when he declared that no one can show GWB lied because no one can read his mind. Now, HR is claiming he can read BHO's mind. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:52:43 "Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us." I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? I wouldn't blame him; most lawyers and legal experts focus on common law within their own spheres of influence. For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York, instead of somewhere like Alabama or, hell, even California. Opponents of health reform should be focusing on the negatives of the bill. They should not be obsessing over and trying to pick apart every little detail of a speech that in the end was little more than grandstanding. Hrothgar Member Thu Sep 10 22:57:30 There is a time and place to discuss disagreements over what the President has said. During the middle of his speech is not the place. That guy is not a hero. He's a loud mouth and showed a distinct lack of respect for his country's leader. For over 225 years our leaders have managed for the vast majority of the time keep debate and arguments civil. They have understood that the other political party is a fellow American opponent, not an enemy. It will be better off for us all if it stays that way. The outrageous extremists on the left and right need to be slapped down when they start getting out of hand and making thing uncivil. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:30:44 Rugian - I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. Rugian - For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York... LOL, why would someone whose job it is to teach Constitutional Law even consider teaching New York Common Law to their students. I swear you are just as stupid as roland. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:37:17 Ugh, this is headache inducing. Do you even know the most basic concepts of law? From the standpoint of common law interpretations of Constitutional law, you obviously look at USSC rulings first. But then you also look at how lower level courts interpret Constitutional law in the jurisdiction that you're likely to practice law in. This is important because depending on what circuit your area falls under, you can have vastly different common law precedents regarding Constitutional law interpretations in effect. Goddamn, I try to reasonably point something out to you and you make it impossible. You truly are a gifted troll Hot Rod. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:38:48 So basically, if a district or circuit court makes a precedent-establishing ruling on an aspect of Constitutional law in your area and it never reaches the Supreme Court, you need to know about that "local" ruling. Please don't argue against this, it is practically guaranteed to make you look stupid if you do. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:43:39 Taking the New York example, someone going to Columbia and planning to practice or teach Constitutional law in New York would spend a disproportionate amount of time looking at 2nd Circuit cases, in comparison to all other circuits. Get it now? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:49:45 Oh, and just to hammer the point home and to be explicit as possible, 2nd Circuit rulings on cases that related to the application of Constitutional law in a particular matter and that were not reviewed by the Supreme Court are examples of the "common law existing in New York" that are relevant to legal experts of Constitutional law. Good night Rod. When I get up in 7 hours I expect to see that you have accepted this and moved on. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:52:54 Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change. The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and inferior courts. The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one which courts can and do ignore occasionally. In other words, when the Supreme Court decided the case of allowing Social Security to illegal aliens, there was no need to hear further cases concerning benefits for illegals. "The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change." You cannot tell me that Obama is totally unaware of the Supreme Court decision concerning illegals and Social Security. Now, you go research it and if you can prove me wrong, I will certainly listen. Beyond that, I don't give a fuck what you think. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:01:20 The USSC made no decision concerning illegals. You seem to be woefully uneducated about how precedent is set. When the USSC refuses to hear a case, as it did in this instance, it is not saying "we affirm the decision of the lower court and establish binding precedent on all lower courts in the country." It is instead saying "we refuse to either affirm or overturn the decision of the lower court. The lower court's decision is binding precedent within its own jurisdiction but is not binding anywhere else." Please learn the basics of how common law works. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:03:20 In other words, your quote about stare decisis doesn't apply. "Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority)" That's where your example fails. By refusing to hear the case, no decision was made by the USSC. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:07:45 Does it burn you to know that someone a third of your age knows so much more about the system of law that has been used to govern you for the better part of a century than you do? Ninja Member Fri Sep 11 00:57:57 "It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. " Except that if he didn't even hear about it, it isn't a lie because he did not willfully know that it would be overturned (even if you weren't blowing smoke out your ass). How can you be so fucking old yet have no fucking clue about the basics of the court system? Are you senile or just a fucking retard? president bush Member Fri Sep 11 06:00:03 lol Hot Rod Member Fri Sep 11 06:46:23 As usual you fucking liberals don't have the brains to read what I posted so you can go fuck yourselves. I would rather argue with a fucking iron ball, it would be far more intelligent that a stupid assed liberal.
achhnji Member	Fri Sep 11 10:09:16 elcome to the Utopia Forums! The current time is Fri Sep 11 10:08:29 2009 , You have 0 new messages. Chat on the IRC server here Utopia Talk / Politics / Regarding The *HERO* That Shouted "lie" Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:23:22 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us? roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:08:33 "Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. " The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:10:31 That really pxss off the Americans who wanted mandatory sex change with the illegals. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 20:42:10 ttt Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:41:24 Hot Rod, I'm honestly curious. Do you think that a lawyer in a certain field knows about every single judicial decision in a state he doesn't practice in? Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:44:29 Why would he? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:47:49 Hell if I know, but you suggested that law experts should know every judicial decision in the history of all 50 states in your OP. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:58:55 No, I did not. Judge Napolitano has a research staff that helps him dig up that kind of stuff when he goes on TV to talk about it. It is his job to either know, or to find out the truth before he reports on it. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:02:26 I don't care what that fat fuck judge thinks. You said that OBAMA should have known about some judicial decision in the state of California. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:14:51 No, I said he should know that depriving illegals of benefits available to everyone else is unconstitutional because he taught Constitutional Law at Columbia University. If you want to go a step farther, the committee that wrote the particular version Obama referred to should have known because they probably have at least 50 law clerks on their staff to do that kind of research. So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law or you have a President who either doesn't know the subject he taught to college law students or he does not know the Bill he is talking about, assuming the committee is on the ball, or you have a President who stood up in front of a Joint Session of Congress and The American People and told a bald faced lie. You figure it out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 22:16:51 Its not lie, because the Law will say Illegals cannot sign up for the Public option. Rod, they already get health care. Federal Law prohibits Emergency Rooms from turning ANYONE away. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:23:19 We are talking about *HEALTH INSURANCE.* If a government run health insurance plan passes in an form, the government will be Constitutionally obligated to make it available to illegal aliens. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:26:05 See Aeros, you are so fucking stupid you can't even stay on subject. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:31:57 "So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law" From your version of events, this particular case only reached the 9th Circuit. Common law precedents formed in one circuit have no explicit precedence in other circuits, so no, this was not the law in New York or any of the states not under the jurisdiction of the 9th. In short, you're either full of shit or, again, you believe that all law experts should be familiar with every single judicial case that has ever taken place in all 50 states. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:45:54 It was heard on appeal and the appeals court upheld the lower court. California appealed to The United States Supreme Court who refuse to hear it. Now I don't know why they refused to hear it, but my guess would be they had already made a similar ruling when they said that illegals were entitled to Social Security. Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:49:05 HR is quite a mind reader. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:50:44 Especially when he declared that no one can show GWB lied because no one can read his mind. Now, HR is claiming he can read BHO's mind. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:52:43 "Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us." I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? I wouldn't blame him; most lawyers and legal experts focus on common law within their own spheres of influence. For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York, instead of somewhere like Alabama or, hell, even California. Opponents of health reform should be focusing on the negatives of the bill. They should not be obsessing over and trying to pick apart every little detail of a speech that in the end was little more than grandstanding. Hrothgar Member Thu Sep 10 22:57:30 There is a time and place to discuss disagreements over what the President has said. During the middle of his speech is not the place. That guy is not a hero. He's a loud mouth and showed a distinct lack of respect for his country's leader. For over 225 years our leaders have managed for the vast majority of the time keep debate and arguments civil. They have understood that the other political party is a fellow American opponent, not an enemy. It will be better off for us all if it stays that way. The outrageous extremists on the left and right need to be slapped down when they start getting out of hand and making thing uncivil. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:30:44 Rugian - I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. Rugian - For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York... LOL, why would someone whose job it is to teach Constitutional Law even consider teaching New York Common Law to their students. I swear you are just as stupid as roland. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:37:17 Ugh, this is headache inducing. Do you even know the most basic concepts of law? From the standpoint of common law interpretations of Constitutional law, you obviously look at USSC rulings first. But then you also look at how lower level courts interpret Constitutional law in the jurisdiction that you're likely to practice law in. This is important because depending on what circuit your area falls under, you can have vastly different common law precedents regarding Constitutional law interpretations in effect. Goddamn, I try to reasonably point something out to you and you make it impossible. You truly are a gifted troll Hot Rod. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:38:48 So basically, if a district or circuit court makes a precedent-establishing ruling on an aspect of Constitutional law in your area and it never reaches the Supreme Court, you need to know about that "local" ruling. Please don't argue against this, it is practically guaranteed to make you look stupid if you do. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:43:39 Taking the New York example, someone going to Columbia and planning to practice or teach Constitutional law in New York would spend a disproportionate amount of time looking at 2nd Circuit cases, in comparison to all other circuits. Get it now? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:49:45 Oh, and just to hammer the point home and to be explicit as possible, 2nd Circuit rulings on cases that related to the application of Constitutional law in a particular matter and that were not reviewed by the Supreme Court are examples of the "common law existing in New York" that are relevant to legal experts of Constitutional law. Good night Rod. When I get up in 7 hours I expect to see that you have accepted this and moved on. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:52:54 Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change. The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and inferior courts. The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one which courts can and do ignore occasionally. In other words, when the Supreme Court decided the case of allowing Social Security to illegal aliens, there was no need to hear further cases concerning benefits for illegals. "The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change." You cannot tell me that Obama is totally unaware of the Supreme Court decision concerning illegals and Social Security. Now, you go research it and if you can prove me wrong, I will certainly listen. Beyond that, I don't give a fuck what you think. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:01:20 The USSC made no decision concerning illegals. You seem to be woefully uneducated about how precedent is set. When the USSC refuses to hear a case, as it did in this instance, it is not saying "we affirm the decision of the lower court and establish binding precedent on all lower courts in the country." It is instead saying "we refuse to either affirm or overturn the decision of the lower court. The lower court's decision is binding precedent within its own jurisdiction but is not binding anywhere else." Please learn the basics of how common law works. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:03:20 In other words, your quote about stare decisis doesn't apply. "Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority)" That's where your example fails. By refusing to hear the case, no decision was made by the USSC. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:07:45 Does it burn you to know that someone a third of your age knows so much more about the system of law that has been used to govern you for the better part of a century than you do? Ninja Member Fri Sep 11 00:57:57 "It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. " Except that if he didn't even hear about it, it isn't a lie because he did not willfully know that it would be overturned (even if you weren't blowing smoke out your ass). How can you be so fucking old yet have no fucking clue about the basics of the court system? Are you senile or just a fucking retard? president bush Member Fri Sep 11 06:00:03 lol Hot Rod Member Fri Sep 11 06:46:23 As usual you fucking liberals don't have the brains to read what I posted so you can go fuck yourselves. I would rather argue with a fucking iron ball, it would be far more intelligent that a stupid assed liberal.
achhnji Member	Fri Sep 11 10:09:17 elcome to the Utopia Forums! The current time is Fri Sep 11 10:08:29 2009 , You have 0 new messages. Chat on the IRC server here Utopia Talk / Politics / Regarding The *HERO* That Shouted "lie" Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:23:22 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us? roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:08:33 "Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. " The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:10:31 That really pxss off the Americans who wanted mandatory sex change with the illegals. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 20:42:10 ttt Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:41:24 Hot Rod, I'm honestly curious. Do you think that a lawyer in a certain field knows about every single judicial decision in a state he doesn't practice in? Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:44:29 Why would he? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:47:49 Hell if I know, but you suggested that law experts should know every judicial decision in the history of all 50 states in your OP. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:58:55 No, I did not. Judge Napolitano has a research staff that helps him dig up that kind of stuff when he goes on TV to talk about it. It is his job to either know, or to find out the truth before he reports on it. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:02:26 I don't care what that fat fuck judge thinks. You said that OBAMA should have known about some judicial decision in the state of California. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:14:51 No, I said he should know that depriving illegals of benefits available to everyone else is unconstitutional because he taught Constitutional Law at Columbia University. If you want to go a step farther, the committee that wrote the particular version Obama referred to should have known because they probably have at least 50 law clerks on their staff to do that kind of research. So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law or you have a President who either doesn't know the subject he taught to college law students or he does not know the Bill he is talking about, assuming the committee is on the ball, or you have a President who stood up in front of a Joint Session of Congress and The American People and told a bald faced lie. You figure it out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 22:16:51 Its not lie, because the Law will say Illegals cannot sign up for the Public option. Rod, they already get health care. Federal Law prohibits Emergency Rooms from turning ANYONE away. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:23:19 We are talking about *HEALTH INSURANCE.* If a government run health insurance plan passes in an form, the government will be Constitutionally obligated to make it available to illegal aliens. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:26:05 See Aeros, you are so fucking stupid you can't even stay on subject. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:31:57 "So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law" From your version of events, this particular case only reached the 9th Circuit. Common law precedents formed in one circuit have no explicit precedence in other circuits, so no, this was not the law in New York or any of the states not under the jurisdiction of the 9th. In short, you're either full of shit or, again, you believe that all law experts should be familiar with every single judicial case that has ever taken place in all 50 states. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:45:54 It was heard on appeal and the appeals court upheld the lower court. California appealed to The United States Supreme Court who refuse to hear it. Now I don't know why they refused to hear it, but my guess would be they had already made a similar ruling when they said that illegals were entitled to Social Security. Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:49:05 HR is quite a mind reader. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:50:44 Especially when he declared that no one can show GWB lied because no one can read his mind. Now, HR is claiming he can read BHO's mind. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:52:43 "Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us." I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? I wouldn't blame him; most lawyers and legal experts focus on common law within their own spheres of influence. For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York, instead of somewhere like Alabama or, hell, even California. Opponents of health reform should be focusing on the negatives of the bill. They should not be obsessing over and trying to pick apart every little detail of a speech that in the end was little more than grandstanding. Hrothgar Member Thu Sep 10 22:57:30 There is a time and place to discuss disagreements over what the President has said. During the middle of his speech is not the place. That guy is not a hero. He's a loud mouth and showed a distinct lack of respect for his country's leader. For over 225 years our leaders have managed for the vast majority of the time keep debate and arguments civil. They have understood that the other political party is a fellow American opponent, not an enemy. It will be better off for us all if it stays that way. The outrageous extremists on the left and right need to be slapped down when they start getting out of hand and making thing uncivil. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:30:44 Rugian - I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. Rugian - For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York... LOL, why would someone whose job it is to teach Constitutional Law even consider teaching New York Common Law to their students. I swear you are just as stupid as roland. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:37:17 Ugh, this is headache inducing. Do you even know the most basic concepts of law? From the standpoint of common law interpretations of Constitutional law, you obviously look at USSC rulings first. But then you also look at how lower level courts interpret Constitutional law in the jurisdiction that you're likely to practice law in. This is important because depending on what circuit your area falls under, you can have vastly different common law precedents regarding Constitutional law interpretations in effect. Goddamn, I try to reasonably point something out to you and you make it impossible. You truly are a gifted troll Hot Rod. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:38:48 So basically, if a district or circuit court makes a precedent-establishing ruling on an aspect of Constitutional law in your area and it never reaches the Supreme Court, you need to know about that "local" ruling. Please don't argue against this, it is practically guaranteed to make you look stupid if you do. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:43:39 Taking the New York example, someone going to Columbia and planning to practice or teach Constitutional law in New York would spend a disproportionate amount of time looking at 2nd Circuit cases, in comparison to all other circuits. Get it now? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:49:45 Oh, and just to hammer the point home and to be explicit as possible, 2nd Circuit rulings on cases that related to the application of Constitutional law in a particular matter and that were not reviewed by the Supreme Court are examples of the "common law existing in New York" that are relevant to legal experts of Constitutional law. Good night Rod. When I get up in 7 hours I expect to see that you have accepted this and moved on. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:52:54 Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change. The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and inferior courts. The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one which courts can and do ignore occasionally. In other words, when the Supreme Court decided the case of allowing Social Security to illegal aliens, there was no need to hear further cases concerning benefits for illegals. "The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change." You cannot tell me that Obama is totally unaware of the Supreme Court decision concerning illegals and Social Security. Now, you go research it and if you can prove me wrong, I will certainly listen. Beyond that, I don't give a fuck what you think. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:01:20 The USSC made no decision concerning illegals. You seem to be woefully uneducated about how precedent is set. When the USSC refuses to hear a case, as it did in this instance, it is not saying "we affirm the decision of the lower court and establish binding precedent on all lower courts in the country." It is instead saying "we refuse to either affirm or overturn the decision of the lower court. The lower court's decision is binding precedent within its own jurisdiction but is not binding anywhere else." Please learn the basics of how common law works. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:03:20 In other words, your quote about stare decisis doesn't apply. "Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority)" That's where your example fails. By refusing to hear the case, no decision was made by the USSC. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:07:45 Does it burn you to know that someone a third of your age knows so much more about the system of law that has been used to govern you for the better part of a century than you do? Ninja Member Fri Sep 11 00:57:57 "It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. " Except that if he didn't even hear about it, it isn't a lie because he did not willfully know that it would be overturned (even if you weren't blowing smoke out your ass). How can you be so fucking old yet have no fucking clue about the basics of the court system? Are you senile or just a fucking retard? president bush Member Fri Sep 11 06:00:03 lol Hot Rod Member Fri Sep 11 06:46:23 As usual you fucking liberals don't have the brains to read what I posted so you can go fuck yourselves. I would rather argue with a fucking iron ball, it would be far more intelligent that a stupid assed liberal.
achhnji Member	Fri Sep 11 10:09:17 elcome to the Utopia Forums! The current time is Fri Sep 11 10:08:29 2009 , You have 0 new messages. Chat on the IRC server here Utopia Talk / Politics / Regarding The *HERO* That Shouted "lie" Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:23:22 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us? roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:08:33 "Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. " The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:10:31 That really pxss off the Americans who wanted mandatory sex change with the illegals. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 20:42:10 ttt Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:41:24 Hot Rod, I'm honestly curious. Do you think that a lawyer in a certain field knows about every single judicial decision in a state he doesn't practice in? Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:44:29 Why would he? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:47:49 Hell if I know, but you suggested that law experts should know every judicial decision in the history of all 50 states in your OP. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:58:55 No, I did not. Judge Napolitano has a research staff that helps him dig up that kind of stuff when he goes on TV to talk about it. It is his job to either know, or to find out the truth before he reports on it. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:02:26 I don't care what that fat fuck judge thinks. You said that OBAMA should have known about some judicial decision in the state of California. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:14:51 No, I said he should know that depriving illegals of benefits available to everyone else is unconstitutional because he taught Constitutional Law at Columbia University. If you want to go a step farther, the committee that wrote the particular version Obama referred to should have known because they probably have at least 50 law clerks on their staff to do that kind of research. So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law or you have a President who either doesn't know the subject he taught to college law students or he does not know the Bill he is talking about, assuming the committee is on the ball, or you have a President who stood up in front of a Joint Session of Congress and The American People and told a bald faced lie. You figure it out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 22:16:51 Its not lie, because the Law will say Illegals cannot sign up for the Public option. Rod, they already get health care. Federal Law prohibits Emergency Rooms from turning ANYONE away. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:23:19 We are talking about *HEALTH INSURANCE.* If a government run health insurance plan passes in an form, the government will be Constitutionally obligated to make it available to illegal aliens. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:26:05 See Aeros, you are so fucking stupid you can't even stay on subject. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:31:57 "So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law" From your version of events, this particular case only reached the 9th Circuit. Common law precedents formed in one circuit have no explicit precedence in other circuits, so no, this was not the law in New York or any of the states not under the jurisdiction of the 9th. In short, you're either full of shit or, again, you believe that all law experts should be familiar with every single judicial case that has ever taken place in all 50 states. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:45:54 It was heard on appeal and the appeals court upheld the lower court. California appealed to The United States Supreme Court who refuse to hear it. Now I don't know why they refused to hear it, but my guess would be they had already made a similar ruling when they said that illegals were entitled to Social Security. Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:49:05 HR is quite a mind reader. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:50:44 Especially when he declared that no one can show GWB lied because no one can read his mind. Now, HR is claiming he can read BHO's mind. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:52:43 "Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us." I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? I wouldn't blame him; most lawyers and legal experts focus on common law within their own spheres of influence. For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York, instead of somewhere like Alabama or, hell, even California. Opponents of health reform should be focusing on the negatives of the bill. They should not be obsessing over and trying to pick apart every little detail of a speech that in the end was little more than grandstanding. Hrothgar Member Thu Sep 10 22:57:30 There is a time and place to discuss disagreements over what the President has said. During the middle of his speech is not the place. That guy is not a hero. He's a loud mouth and showed a distinct lack of respect for his country's leader. For over 225 years our leaders have managed for the vast majority of the time keep debate and arguments civil. They have understood that the other political party is a fellow American opponent, not an enemy. It will be better off for us all if it stays that way. The outrageous extremists on the left and right need to be slapped down when they start getting out of hand and making thing uncivil. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:30:44 Rugian - I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. Rugian - For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York... LOL, why would someone whose job it is to teach Constitutional Law even consider teaching New York Common Law to their students. I swear you are just as stupid as roland. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:37:17 Ugh, this is headache inducing. Do you even know the most basic concepts of law? From the standpoint of common law interpretations of Constitutional law, you obviously look at USSC rulings first. But then you also look at how lower level courts interpret Constitutional law in the jurisdiction that you're likely to practice law in. This is important because depending on what circuit your area falls under, you can have vastly different common law precedents regarding Constitutional law interpretations in effect. Goddamn, I try to reasonably point something out to you and you make it impossible. You truly are a gifted troll Hot Rod. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:38:48 So basically, if a district or circuit court makes a precedent-establishing ruling on an aspect of Constitutional law in your area and it never reaches the Supreme Court, you need to know about that "local" ruling. Please don't argue against this, it is practically guaranteed to make you look stupid if you do. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:43:39 Taking the New York example, someone going to Columbia and planning to practice or teach Constitutional law in New York would spend a disproportionate amount of time looking at 2nd Circuit cases, in comparison to all other circuits. Get it now? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:49:45 Oh, and just to hammer the point home and to be explicit as possible, 2nd Circuit rulings on cases that related to the application of Constitutional law in a particular matter and that were not reviewed by the Supreme Court are examples of the "common law existing in New York" that are relevant to legal experts of Constitutional law. Good night Rod. When I get up in 7 hours I expect to see that you have accepted this and moved on. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:52:54 Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change. The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and inferior courts. The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one which courts can and do ignore occasionally. In other words, when the Supreme Court decided the case of allowing Social Security to illegal aliens, there was no need to hear further cases concerning benefits for illegals. "The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change." You cannot tell me that Obama is totally unaware of the Supreme Court decision concerning illegals and Social Security. Now, you go research it and if you can prove me wrong, I will certainly listen. Beyond that, I don't give a fuck what you think. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:01:20 The USSC made no decision concerning illegals. You seem to be woefully uneducated about how precedent is set. When the USSC refuses to hear a case, as it did in this instance, it is not saying "we affirm the decision of the lower court and establish binding precedent on all lower courts in the country." It is instead saying "we refuse to either affirm or overturn the decision of the lower court. The lower court's decision is binding precedent within its own jurisdiction but is not binding anywhere else." Please learn the basics of how common law works. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:03:20 In other words, your quote about stare decisis doesn't apply. "Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority)" That's where your example fails. By refusing to hear the case, no decision was made by the USSC. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:07:45 Does it burn you to know that someone a third of your age knows so much more about the system of law that has been used to govern you for the better part of a century than you do? Ninja Member Fri Sep 11 00:57:57 "It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. " Except that if he didn't even hear about it, it isn't a lie because he did not willfully know that it would be overturned (even if you weren't blowing smoke out your ass). How can you be so fucking old yet have no fucking clue about the basics of the court system? Are you senile or just a fucking retard? president bush Member Fri Sep 11 06:00:03 lol Hot Rod Member Fri Sep 11 06:46:23 As usual you fucking liberals don't have the brains to read what I posted so you can go fuck yourselves. I would rather argue with a fucking iron ball, it would be far more intelligent that a stupid assed liberal.
achhnji Member	Fri Sep 11 10:09:17 elcome to the Utopia Forums! The current time is Fri Sep 11 10:08:29 2009 , You have 0 new messages. Chat on the IRC server here Utopia Talk / Politics / Regarding The *HERO* That Shouted "lie" Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:23:22 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us? roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:08:33 "Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. " The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:10:31 That really pxss off the Americans who wanted mandatory sex change with the illegals. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 20:42:10 ttt Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:41:24 Hot Rod, I'm honestly curious. Do you think that a lawyer in a certain field knows about every single judicial decision in a state he doesn't practice in? Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:44:29 Why would he? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:47:49 Hell if I know, but you suggested that law experts should know every judicial decision in the history of all 50 states in your OP. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:58:55 No, I did not. Judge Napolitano has a research staff that helps him dig up that kind of stuff when he goes on TV to talk about it. It is his job to either know, or to find out the truth before he reports on it. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:02:26 I don't care what that fat fuck judge thinks. You said that OBAMA should have known about some judicial decision in the state of California. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:14:51 No, I said he should know that depriving illegals of benefits available to everyone else is unconstitutional because he taught Constitutional Law at Columbia University. If you want to go a step farther, the committee that wrote the particular version Obama referred to should have known because they probably have at least 50 law clerks on their staff to do that kind of research. So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law or you have a President who either doesn't know the subject he taught to college law students or he does not know the Bill he is talking about, assuming the committee is on the ball, or you have a President who stood up in front of a Joint Session of Congress and The American People and told a bald faced lie. You figure it out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 22:16:51 Its not lie, because the Law will say Illegals cannot sign up for the Public option. Rod, they already get health care. Federal Law prohibits Emergency Rooms from turning ANYONE away. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:23:19 We are talking about *HEALTH INSURANCE.* If a government run health insurance plan passes in an form, the government will be Constitutionally obligated to make it available to illegal aliens. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:26:05 See Aeros, you are so fucking stupid you can't even stay on subject. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:31:57 "So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law" From your version of events, this particular case only reached the 9th Circuit. Common law precedents formed in one circuit have no explicit precedence in other circuits, so no, this was not the law in New York or any of the states not under the jurisdiction of the 9th. In short, you're either full of shit or, again, you believe that all law experts should be familiar with every single judicial case that has ever taken place in all 50 states. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:45:54 It was heard on appeal and the appeals court upheld the lower court. California appealed to The United States Supreme Court who refuse to hear it. Now I don't know why they refused to hear it, but my guess would be they had already made a similar ruling when they said that illegals were entitled to Social Security. Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:49:05 HR is quite a mind reader. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:50:44 Especially when he declared that no one can show GWB lied because no one can read his mind. Now, HR is claiming he can read BHO's mind. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:52:43 "Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us." I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? I wouldn't blame him; most lawyers and legal experts focus on common law within their own spheres of influence. For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York, instead of somewhere like Alabama or, hell, even California. Opponents of health reform should be focusing on the negatives of the bill. They should not be obsessing over and trying to pick apart every little detail of a speech that in the end was little more than grandstanding. Hrothgar Member Thu Sep 10 22:57:30 There is a time and place to discuss disagreements over what the President has said. During the middle of his speech is not the place. That guy is not a hero. He's a loud mouth and showed a distinct lack of respect for his country's leader. For over 225 years our leaders have managed for the vast majority of the time keep debate and arguments civil. They have understood that the other political party is a fellow American opponent, not an enemy. It will be better off for us all if it stays that way. The outrageous extremists on the left and right need to be slapped down when they start getting out of hand and making thing uncivil. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:30:44 Rugian - I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. Rugian - For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York... LOL, why would someone whose job it is to teach Constitutional Law even consider teaching New York Common Law to their students. I swear you are just as stupid as roland. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:37:17 Ugh, this is headache inducing. Do you even know the most basic concepts of law? From the standpoint of common law interpretations of Constitutional law, you obviously look at USSC rulings first. But then you also look at how lower level courts interpret Constitutional law in the jurisdiction that you're likely to practice law in. This is important because depending on what circuit your area falls under, you can have vastly different common law precedents regarding Constitutional law interpretations in effect. Goddamn, I try to reasonably point something out to you and you make it impossible. You truly are a gifted troll Hot Rod. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:38:48 So basically, if a district or circuit court makes a precedent-establishing ruling on an aspect of Constitutional law in your area and it never reaches the Supreme Court, you need to know about that "local" ruling. Please don't argue against this, it is practically guaranteed to make you look stupid if you do. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:43:39 Taking the New York example, someone going to Columbia and planning to practice or teach Constitutional law in New York would spend a disproportionate amount of time looking at 2nd Circuit cases, in comparison to all other circuits. Get it now? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:49:45 Oh, and just to hammer the point home and to be explicit as possible, 2nd Circuit rulings on cases that related to the application of Constitutional law in a particular matter and that were not reviewed by the Supreme Court are examples of the "common law existing in New York" that are relevant to legal experts of Constitutional law. Good night Rod. When I get up in 7 hours I expect to see that you have accepted this and moved on. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:52:54 Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change. The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and inferior courts. The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one which courts can and do ignore occasionally. In other words, when the Supreme Court decided the case of allowing Social Security to illegal aliens, there was no need to hear further cases concerning benefits for illegals. "The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change." You cannot tell me that Obama is totally unaware of the Supreme Court decision concerning illegals and Social Security. Now, you go research it and if you can prove me wrong, I will certainly listen. Beyond that, I don't give a fuck what you think. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:01:20 The USSC made no decision concerning illegals. You seem to be woefully uneducated about how precedent is set. When the USSC refuses to hear a case, as it did in this instance, it is not saying "we affirm the decision of the lower court and establish binding precedent on all lower courts in the country." It is instead saying "we refuse to either affirm or overturn the decision of the lower court. The lower court's decision is binding precedent within its own jurisdiction but is not binding anywhere else." Please learn the basics of how common law works. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:03:20 In other words, your quote about stare decisis doesn't apply. "Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority)" That's where your example fails. By refusing to hear the case, no decision was made by the USSC. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:07:45 Does it burn you to know that someone a third of your age knows so much more about the system of law that has been used to govern you for the better part of a century than you do? Ninja Member Fri Sep 11 00:57:57 "It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. " Except that if he didn't even hear about it, it isn't a lie because he did not willfully know that it would be overturned (even if you weren't blowing smoke out your ass). How can you be so fucking old yet have no fucking clue about the basics of the court system? Are you senile or just a fucking retard? president bush Member Fri Sep 11 06:00:03 lol Hot Rod Member Fri Sep 11 06:46:23 As usual you fucking liberals don't have the brains to read what I posted so you can go fuck yourselves. I would rather argue with a fucking iron ball, it would be far more intelligent that a stupid assed liberal.
achhnji Member	Fri Sep 11 10:09:18 elcome to the Utopia Forums! The current time is Fri Sep 11 10:08:29 2009 , You have 0 new messages. Chat on the IRC server here Utopia Talk / Politics / Regarding The *HERO* That Shouted "lie" Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:23:22 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us? roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:08:33 "Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. " The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:10:31 That really pxss off the Americans who wanted mandatory sex change with the illegals. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 20:42:10 ttt Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:41:24 Hot Rod, I'm honestly curious. Do you think that a lawyer in a certain field knows about every single judicial decision in a state he doesn't practice in? Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:44:29 Why would he? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:47:49 Hell if I know, but you suggested that law experts should know every judicial decision in the history of all 50 states in your OP. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:58:55 No, I did not. Judge Napolitano has a research staff that helps him dig up that kind of stuff when he goes on TV to talk about it. It is his job to either know, or to find out the truth before he reports on it. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:02:26 I don't care what that fat fuck judge thinks. You said that OBAMA should have known about some judicial decision in the state of California. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:14:51 No, I said he should know that depriving illegals of benefits available to everyone else is unconstitutional because he taught Constitutional Law at Columbia University. If you want to go a step farther, the committee that wrote the particular version Obama referred to should have known because they probably have at least 50 law clerks on their staff to do that kind of research. So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law or you have a President who either doesn't know the subject he taught to college law students or he does not know the Bill he is talking about, assuming the committee is on the ball, or you have a President who stood up in front of a Joint Session of Congress and The American People and told a bald faced lie. You figure it out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 22:16:51 Its not lie, because the Law will say Illegals cannot sign up for the Public option. Rod, they already get health care. Federal Law prohibits Emergency Rooms from turning ANYONE away. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:23:19 We are talking about *HEALTH INSURANCE.* If a government run health insurance plan passes in an form, the government will be Constitutionally obligated to make it available to illegal aliens. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:26:05 See Aeros, you are so fucking stupid you can't even stay on subject. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:31:57 "So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law" From your version of events, this particular case only reached the 9th Circuit. Common law precedents formed in one circuit have no explicit precedence in other circuits, so no, this was not the law in New York or any of the states not under the jurisdiction of the 9th. In short, you're either full of shit or, again, you believe that all law experts should be familiar with every single judicial case that has ever taken place in all 50 states. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:45:54 It was heard on appeal and the appeals court upheld the lower court. California appealed to The United States Supreme Court who refuse to hear it. Now I don't know why they refused to hear it, but my guess would be they had already made a similar ruling when they said that illegals were entitled to Social Security. Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:49:05 HR is quite a mind reader. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:50:44 Especially when he declared that no one can show GWB lied because no one can read his mind. Now, HR is claiming he can read BHO's mind. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:52:43 "Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us." I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? I wouldn't blame him; most lawyers and legal experts focus on common law within their own spheres of influence. For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York, instead of somewhere like Alabama or, hell, even California. Opponents of health reform should be focusing on the negatives of the bill. They should not be obsessing over and trying to pick apart every little detail of a speech that in the end was little more than grandstanding. Hrothgar Member Thu Sep 10 22:57:30 There is a time and place to discuss disagreements over what the President has said. During the middle of his speech is not the place. That guy is not a hero. He's a loud mouth and showed a distinct lack of respect for his country's leader. For over 225 years our leaders have managed for the vast majority of the time keep debate and arguments civil. They have understood that the other political party is a fellow American opponent, not an enemy. It will be better off for us all if it stays that way. The outrageous extremists on the left and right need to be slapped down when they start getting out of hand and making thing uncivil. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:30:44 Rugian - I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. Rugian - For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York... LOL, why would someone whose job it is to teach Constitutional Law even consider teaching New York Common Law to their students. I swear you are just as stupid as roland. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:37:17 Ugh, this is headache inducing. Do you even know the most basic concepts of law? From the standpoint of common law interpretations of Constitutional law, you obviously look at USSC rulings first. But then you also look at how lower level courts interpret Constitutional law in the jurisdiction that you're likely to practice law in. This is important because depending on what circuit your area falls under, you can have vastly different common law precedents regarding Constitutional law interpretations in effect. Goddamn, I try to reasonably point something out to you and you make it impossible. You truly are a gifted troll Hot Rod. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:38:48 So basically, if a district or circuit court makes a precedent-establishing ruling on an aspect of Constitutional law in your area and it never reaches the Supreme Court, you need to know about that "local" ruling. Please don't argue against this, it is practically guaranteed to make you look stupid if you do. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:43:39 Taking the New York example, someone going to Columbia and planning to practice or teach Constitutional law in New York would spend a disproportionate amount of time looking at 2nd Circuit cases, in comparison to all other circuits. Get it now? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:49:45 Oh, and just to hammer the point home and to be explicit as possible, 2nd Circuit rulings on cases that related to the application of Constitutional law in a particular matter and that were not reviewed by the Supreme Court are examples of the "common law existing in New York" that are relevant to legal experts of Constitutional law. Good night Rod. When I get up in 7 hours I expect to see that you have accepted this and moved on. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:52:54 Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change. The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and inferior courts. The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one which courts can and do ignore occasionally. In other words, when the Supreme Court decided the case of allowing Social Security to illegal aliens, there was no need to hear further cases concerning benefits for illegals. "The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change." You cannot tell me that Obama is totally unaware of the Supreme Court decision concerning illegals and Social Security. Now, you go research it and if you can prove me wrong, I will certainly listen. Beyond that, I don't give a fuck what you think. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:01:20 The USSC made no decision concerning illegals. You seem to be woefully uneducated about how precedent is set. When the USSC refuses to hear a case, as it did in this instance, it is not saying "we affirm the decision of the lower court and establish binding precedent on all lower courts in the country." It is instead saying "we refuse to either affirm or overturn the decision of the lower court. The lower court's decision is binding precedent within its own jurisdiction but is not binding anywhere else." Please learn the basics of how common law works. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:03:20 In other words, your quote about stare decisis doesn't apply. "Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority)" That's where your example fails. By refusing to hear the case, no decision was made by the USSC. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:07:45 Does it burn you to know that someone a third of your age knows so much more about the system of law that has been used to govern you for the better part of a century than you do? Ninja Member Fri Sep 11 00:57:57 "It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. " Except that if he didn't even hear about it, it isn't a lie because he did not willfully know that it would be overturned (even if you weren't blowing smoke out your ass). How can you be so fucking old yet have no fucking clue about the basics of the court system? Are you senile or just a fucking retard? president bush Member Fri Sep 11 06:00:03 lol Hot Rod Member Fri Sep 11 06:46:23 As usual you fucking liberals don't have the brains to read what I posted so you can go fuck yourselves. I would rather argue with a fucking iron ball, it would be far more intelligent that a stupid assed liberal.
achhnji Member	Fri Sep 11 10:09:18 elcome to the Utopia Forums! The current time is Fri Sep 11 10:08:29 2009 , You have 0 new messages. Chat on the IRC server here Utopia Talk / Politics / Regarding The *HERO* That Shouted "lie" Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:23:22 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us? roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:08:33 "Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. " The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:10:31 That really pxss off the Americans who wanted mandatory sex change with the illegals. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 20:42:10 ttt Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:41:24 Hot Rod, I'm honestly curious. Do you think that a lawyer in a certain field knows about every single judicial decision in a state he doesn't practice in? Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:44:29 Why would he? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:47:49 Hell if I know, but you suggested that law experts should know every judicial decision in the history of all 50 states in your OP. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:58:55 No, I did not. Judge Napolitano has a research staff that helps him dig up that kind of stuff when he goes on TV to talk about it. It is his job to either know, or to find out the truth before he reports on it. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:02:26 I don't care what that fat fuck judge thinks. You said that OBAMA should have known about some judicial decision in the state of California. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:14:51 No, I said he should know that depriving illegals of benefits available to everyone else is unconstitutional because he taught Constitutional Law at Columbia University. If you want to go a step farther, the committee that wrote the particular version Obama referred to should have known because they probably have at least 50 law clerks on their staff to do that kind of research. So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law or you have a President who either doesn't know the subject he taught to college law students or he does not know the Bill he is talking about, assuming the committee is on the ball, or you have a President who stood up in front of a Joint Session of Congress and The American People and told a bald faced lie. You figure it out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 22:16:51 Its not lie, because the Law will say Illegals cannot sign up for the Public option. Rod, they already get health care. Federal Law prohibits Emergency Rooms from turning ANYONE away. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:23:19 We are talking about *HEALTH INSURANCE.* If a government run health insurance plan passes in an form, the government will be Constitutionally obligated to make it available to illegal aliens. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:26:05 See Aeros, you are so fucking stupid you can't even stay on subject. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:31:57 "So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law" From your version of events, this particular case only reached the 9th Circuit. Common law precedents formed in one circuit have no explicit precedence in other circuits, so no, this was not the law in New York or any of the states not under the jurisdiction of the 9th. In short, you're either full of shit or, again, you believe that all law experts should be familiar with every single judicial case that has ever taken place in all 50 states. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:45:54 It was heard on appeal and the appeals court upheld the lower court. California appealed to The United States Supreme Court who refuse to hear it. Now I don't know why they refused to hear it, but my guess would be they had already made a similar ruling when they said that illegals were entitled to Social Security. Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:49:05 HR is quite a mind reader. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:50:44 Especially when he declared that no one can show GWB lied because no one can read his mind. Now, HR is claiming he can read BHO's mind. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:52:43 "Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us." I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? I wouldn't blame him; most lawyers and legal experts focus on common law within their own spheres of influence. For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York, instead of somewhere like Alabama or, hell, even California. Opponents of health reform should be focusing on the negatives of the bill. They should not be obsessing over and trying to pick apart every little detail of a speech that in the end was little more than grandstanding. Hrothgar Member Thu Sep 10 22:57:30 There is a time and place to discuss disagreements over what the President has said. During the middle of his speech is not the place. That guy is not a hero. He's a loud mouth and showed a distinct lack of respect for his country's leader. For over 225 years our leaders have managed for the vast majority of the time keep debate and arguments civil. They have understood that the other political party is a fellow American opponent, not an enemy. It will be better off for us all if it stays that way. The outrageous extremists on the left and right need to be slapped down when they start getting out of hand and making thing uncivil. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:30:44 Rugian - I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. Rugian - For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York... LOL, why would someone whose job it is to teach Constitutional Law even consider teaching New York Common Law to their students. I swear you are just as stupid as roland. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:37:17 Ugh, this is headache inducing. Do you even know the most basic concepts of law? From the standpoint of common law interpretations of Constitutional law, you obviously look at USSC rulings first. But then you also look at how lower level courts interpret Constitutional law in the jurisdiction that you're likely to practice law in. This is important because depending on what circuit your area falls under, you can have vastly different common law precedents regarding Constitutional law interpretations in effect. Goddamn, I try to reasonably point something out to you and you make it impossible. You truly are a gifted troll Hot Rod. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:38:48 So basically, if a district or circuit court makes a precedent-establishing ruling on an aspect of Constitutional law in your area and it never reaches the Supreme Court, you need to know about that "local" ruling. Please don't argue against this, it is practically guaranteed to make you look stupid if you do. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:43:39 Taking the New York example, someone going to Columbia and planning to practice or teach Constitutional law in New York would spend a disproportionate amount of time looking at 2nd Circuit cases, in comparison to all other circuits. Get it now? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:49:45 Oh, and just to hammer the point home and to be explicit as possible, 2nd Circuit rulings on cases that related to the application of Constitutional law in a particular matter and that were not reviewed by the Supreme Court are examples of the "common law existing in New York" that are relevant to legal experts of Constitutional law. Good night Rod. When I get up in 7 hours I expect to see that you have accepted this and moved on. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:52:54 Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change. The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and inferior courts. The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one which courts can and do ignore occasionally. In other words, when the Supreme Court decided the case of allowing Social Security to illegal aliens, there was no need to hear further cases concerning benefits for illegals. "The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change." You cannot tell me that Obama is totally unaware of the Supreme Court decision concerning illegals and Social Security. Now, you go research it and if you can prove me wrong, I will certainly listen. Beyond that, I don't give a fuck what you think. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:01:20 The USSC made no decision concerning illegals. You seem to be woefully uneducated about how precedent is set. When the USSC refuses to hear a case, as it did in this instance, it is not saying "we affirm the decision of the lower court and establish binding precedent on all lower courts in the country." It is instead saying "we refuse to either affirm or overturn the decision of the lower court. The lower court's decision is binding precedent within its own jurisdiction but is not binding anywhere else." Please learn the basics of how common law works. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:03:20 In other words, your quote about stare decisis doesn't apply. "Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority)" That's where your example fails. By refusing to hear the case, no decision was made by the USSC. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:07:45 Does it burn you to know that someone a third of your age knows so much more about the system of law that has been used to govern you for the better part of a century than you do? Ninja Member Fri Sep 11 00:57:57 "It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. " Except that if he didn't even hear about it, it isn't a lie because he did not willfully know that it would be overturned (even if you weren't blowing smoke out your ass). How can you be so fucking old yet have no fucking clue about the basics of the court system? Are you senile or just a fucking retard? president bush Member Fri Sep 11 06:00:03 lol Hot Rod Member Fri Sep 11 06:46:23 As usual you fucking liberals don't have the brains to read what I posted so you can go fuck yourselves. I would rather argue with a fucking iron ball, it would be far more intelligent that a stupid assed liberal.
achhnji Member	Fri Sep 11 10:09:19 elcome to the Utopia Forums! The current time is Fri Sep 11 10:08:29 2009 , You have 0 new messages. Chat on the IRC server here Utopia Talk / Politics / Regarding The *HERO* That Shouted "lie" Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:23:22 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us? roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:08:33 "Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. " The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:10:31 That really pxss off the Americans who wanted mandatory sex change with the illegals. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 20:42:10 ttt Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:41:24 Hot Rod, I'm honestly curious. Do you think that a lawyer in a certain field knows about every single judicial decision in a state he doesn't practice in? Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:44:29 Why would he? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:47:49 Hell if I know, but you suggested that law experts should know every judicial decision in the history of all 50 states in your OP. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:58:55 No, I did not. Judge Napolitano has a research staff that helps him dig up that kind of stuff when he goes on TV to talk about it. It is his job to either know, or to find out the truth before he reports on it. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:02:26 I don't care what that fat fuck judge thinks. You said that OBAMA should have known about some judicial decision in the state of California. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:14:51 No, I said he should know that depriving illegals of benefits available to everyone else is unconstitutional because he taught Constitutional Law at Columbia University. If you want to go a step farther, the committee that wrote the particular version Obama referred to should have known because they probably have at least 50 law clerks on their staff to do that kind of research. So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law or you have a President who either doesn't know the subject he taught to college law students or he does not know the Bill he is talking about, assuming the committee is on the ball, or you have a President who stood up in front of a Joint Session of Congress and The American People and told a bald faced lie. You figure it out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 22:16:51 Its not lie, because the Law will say Illegals cannot sign up for the Public option. Rod, they already get health care. Federal Law prohibits Emergency Rooms from turning ANYONE away. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:23:19 We are talking about *HEALTH INSURANCE.* If a government run health insurance plan passes in an form, the government will be Constitutionally obligated to make it available to illegal aliens. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:26:05 See Aeros, you are so fucking stupid you can't even stay on subject. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:31:57 "So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law" From your version of events, this particular case only reached the 9th Circuit. Common law precedents formed in one circuit have no explicit precedence in other circuits, so no, this was not the law in New York or any of the states not under the jurisdiction of the 9th. In short, you're either full of shit or, again, you believe that all law experts should be familiar with every single judicial case that has ever taken place in all 50 states. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:45:54 It was heard on appeal and the appeals court upheld the lower court. California appealed to The United States Supreme Court who refuse to hear it. Now I don't know why they refused to hear it, but my guess would be they had already made a similar ruling when they said that illegals were entitled to Social Security. Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:49:05 HR is quite a mind reader. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:50:44 Especially when he declared that no one can show GWB lied because no one can read his mind. Now, HR is claiming he can read BHO's mind. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:52:43 "Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us." I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? I wouldn't blame him; most lawyers and legal experts focus on common law within their own spheres of influence. For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York, instead of somewhere like Alabama or, hell, even California. Opponents of health reform should be focusing on the negatives of the bill. They should not be obsessing over and trying to pick apart every little detail of a speech that in the end was little more than grandstanding. Hrothgar Member Thu Sep 10 22:57:30 There is a time and place to discuss disagreements over what the President has said. During the middle of his speech is not the place. That guy is not a hero. He's a loud mouth and showed a distinct lack of respect for his country's leader. For over 225 years our leaders have managed for the vast majority of the time keep debate and arguments civil. They have understood that the other political party is a fellow American opponent, not an enemy. It will be better off for us all if it stays that way. The outrageous extremists on the left and right need to be slapped down when they start getting out of hand and making thing uncivil. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:30:44 Rugian - I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. Rugian - For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York... LOL, why would someone whose job it is to teach Constitutional Law even consider teaching New York Common Law to their students. I swear you are just as stupid as roland. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:37:17 Ugh, this is headache inducing. Do you even know the most basic concepts of law? From the standpoint of common law interpretations of Constitutional law, you obviously look at USSC rulings first. But then you also look at how lower level courts interpret Constitutional law in the jurisdiction that you're likely to practice law in. This is important because depending on what circuit your area falls under, you can have vastly different common law precedents regarding Constitutional law interpretations in effect. Goddamn, I try to reasonably point something out to you and you make it impossible. You truly are a gifted troll Hot Rod. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:38:48 So basically, if a district or circuit court makes a precedent-establishing ruling on an aspect of Constitutional law in your area and it never reaches the Supreme Court, you need to know about that "local" ruling. Please don't argue against this, it is practically guaranteed to make you look stupid if you do. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:43:39 Taking the New York example, someone going to Columbia and planning to practice or teach Constitutional law in New York would spend a disproportionate amount of time looking at 2nd Circuit cases, in comparison to all other circuits. Get it now? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:49:45 Oh, and just to hammer the point home and to be explicit as possible, 2nd Circuit rulings on cases that related to the application of Constitutional law in a particular matter and that were not reviewed by the Supreme Court are examples of the "common law existing in New York" that are relevant to legal experts of Constitutional law. Good night Rod. When I get up in 7 hours I expect to see that you have accepted this and moved on. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:52:54 Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change. The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and inferior courts. The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one which courts can and do ignore occasionally. In other words, when the Supreme Court decided the case of allowing Social Security to illegal aliens, there was no need to hear further cases concerning benefits for illegals. "The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change." You cannot tell me that Obama is totally unaware of the Supreme Court decision concerning illegals and Social Security. Now, you go research it and if you can prove me wrong, I will certainly listen. Beyond that, I don't give a fuck what you think. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:01:20 The USSC made no decision concerning illegals. You seem to be woefully uneducated about how precedent is set. When the USSC refuses to hear a case, as it did in this instance, it is not saying "we affirm the decision of the lower court and establish binding precedent on all lower courts in the country." It is instead saying "we refuse to either affirm or overturn the decision of the lower court. The lower court's decision is binding precedent within its own jurisdiction but is not binding anywhere else." Please learn the basics of how common law works. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:03:20 In other words, your quote about stare decisis doesn't apply. "Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority)" That's where your example fails. By refusing to hear the case, no decision was made by the USSC. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:07:45 Does it burn you to know that someone a third of your age knows so much more about the system of law that has been used to govern you for the better part of a century than you do? Ninja Member Fri Sep 11 00:57:57 "It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. " Except that if he didn't even hear about it, it isn't a lie because he did not willfully know that it would be overturned (even if you weren't blowing smoke out your ass). How can you be so fucking old yet have no fucking clue about the basics of the court system? Are you senile or just a fucking retard? president bush Member Fri Sep 11 06:00:03 lol Hot Rod Member Fri Sep 11 06:46:23 As usual you fucking liberals don't have the brains to read what I posted so you can go fuck yourselves. I would rather argue with a fucking iron ball, it would be far more intelligent that a stupid assed liberal.
achhnji Member	Fri Sep 11 10:09:19 elcome to the Utopia Forums! The current time is Fri Sep 11 10:08:29 2009 , You have 0 new messages. Chat on the IRC server here Utopia Talk / Politics / Regarding The *HERO* That Shouted "lie" Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:23:22 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us? roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:08:33 "Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. " The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:10:31 That really pxss off the Americans who wanted mandatory sex change with the illegals. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 20:42:10 ttt Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:41:24 Hot Rod, I'm honestly curious. Do you think that a lawyer in a certain field knows about every single judicial decision in a state he doesn't practice in? Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:44:29 Why would he? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:47:49 Hell if I know, but you suggested that law experts should know every judicial decision in the history of all 50 states in your OP. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:58:55 No, I did not. Judge Napolitano has a research staff that helps him dig up that kind of stuff when he goes on TV to talk about it. It is his job to either know, or to find out the truth before he reports on it. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:02:26 I don't care what that fat fuck judge thinks. You said that OBAMA should have known about some judicial decision in the state of California. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:14:51 No, I said he should know that depriving illegals of benefits available to everyone else is unconstitutional because he taught Constitutional Law at Columbia University. If you want to go a step farther, the committee that wrote the particular version Obama referred to should have known because they probably have at least 50 law clerks on their staff to do that kind of research. So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law or you have a President who either doesn't know the subject he taught to college law students or he does not know the Bill he is talking about, assuming the committee is on the ball, or you have a President who stood up in front of a Joint Session of Congress and The American People and told a bald faced lie. You figure it out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 22:16:51 Its not lie, because the Law will say Illegals cannot sign up for the Public option. Rod, they already get health care. Federal Law prohibits Emergency Rooms from turning ANYONE away. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:23:19 We are talking about *HEALTH INSURANCE.* If a government run health insurance plan passes in an form, the government will be Constitutionally obligated to make it available to illegal aliens. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:26:05 See Aeros, you are so fucking stupid you can't even stay on subject. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:31:57 "So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law" From your version of events, this particular case only reached the 9th Circuit. Common law precedents formed in one circuit have no explicit precedence in other circuits, so no, this was not the law in New York or any of the states not under the jurisdiction of the 9th. In short, you're either full of shit or, again, you believe that all law experts should be familiar with every single judicial case that has ever taken place in all 50 states. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:45:54 It was heard on appeal and the appeals court upheld the lower court. California appealed to The United States Supreme Court who refuse to hear it. Now I don't know why they refused to hear it, but my guess would be they had already made a similar ruling when they said that illegals were entitled to Social Security. Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:49:05 HR is quite a mind reader. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:50:44 Especially when he declared that no one can show GWB lied because no one can read his mind. Now, HR is claiming he can read BHO's mind. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:52:43 "Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us." I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? I wouldn't blame him; most lawyers and legal experts focus on common law within their own spheres of influence. For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York, instead of somewhere like Alabama or, hell, even California. Opponents of health reform should be focusing on the negatives of the bill. They should not be obsessing over and trying to pick apart every little detail of a speech that in the end was little more than grandstanding. Hrothgar Member Thu Sep 10 22:57:30 There is a time and place to discuss disagreements over what the President has said. During the middle of his speech is not the place. That guy is not a hero. He's a loud mouth and showed a distinct lack of respect for his country's leader. For over 225 years our leaders have managed for the vast majority of the time keep debate and arguments civil. They have understood that the other political party is a fellow American opponent, not an enemy. It will be better off for us all if it stays that way. The outrageous extremists on the left and right need to be slapped down when they start getting out of hand and making thing uncivil. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:30:44 Rugian - I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. Rugian - For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York... LOL, why would someone whose job it is to teach Constitutional Law even consider teaching New York Common Law to their students. I swear you are just as stupid as roland. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:37:17 Ugh, this is headache inducing. Do you even know the most basic concepts of law? From the standpoint of common law interpretations of Constitutional law, you obviously look at USSC rulings first. But then you also look at how lower level courts interpret Constitutional law in the jurisdiction that you're likely to practice law in. This is important because depending on what circuit your area falls under, you can have vastly different common law precedents regarding Constitutional law interpretations in effect. Goddamn, I try to reasonably point something out to you and you make it impossible. You truly are a gifted troll Hot Rod. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:38:48 So basically, if a district or circuit court makes a precedent-establishing ruling on an aspect of Constitutional law in your area and it never reaches the Supreme Court, you need to know about that "local" ruling. Please don't argue against this, it is practically guaranteed to make you look stupid if you do. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:43:39 Taking the New York example, someone going to Columbia and planning to practice or teach Constitutional law in New York would spend a disproportionate amount of time looking at 2nd Circuit cases, in comparison to all other circuits. Get it now? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:49:45 Oh, and just to hammer the point home and to be explicit as possible, 2nd Circuit rulings on cases that related to the application of Constitutional law in a particular matter and that were not reviewed by the Supreme Court are examples of the "common law existing in New York" that are relevant to legal experts of Constitutional law. Good night Rod. When I get up in 7 hours I expect to see that you have accepted this and moved on. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:52:54 Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change. The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and inferior courts. The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one which courts can and do ignore occasionally. In other words, when the Supreme Court decided the case of allowing Social Security to illegal aliens, there was no need to hear further cases concerning benefits for illegals. "The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change." You cannot tell me that Obama is totally unaware of the Supreme Court decision concerning illegals and Social Security. Now, you go research it and if you can prove me wrong, I will certainly listen. Beyond that, I don't give a fuck what you think. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:01:20 The USSC made no decision concerning illegals. You seem to be woefully uneducated about how precedent is set. When the USSC refuses to hear a case, as it did in this instance, it is not saying "we affirm the decision of the lower court and establish binding precedent on all lower courts in the country." It is instead saying "we refuse to either affirm or overturn the decision of the lower court. The lower court's decision is binding precedent within its own jurisdiction but is not binding anywhere else." Please learn the basics of how common law works. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:03:20 In other words, your quote about stare decisis doesn't apply. "Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority)" That's where your example fails. By refusing to hear the case, no decision was made by the USSC. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:07:45 Does it burn you to know that someone a third of your age knows so much more about the system of law that has been used to govern you for the better part of a century than you do? Ninja Member Fri Sep 11 00:57:57 "It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. " Except that if he didn't even hear about it, it isn't a lie because he did not willfully know that it would be overturned (even if you weren't blowing smoke out your ass). How can you be so fucking old yet have no fucking clue about the basics of the court system? Are you senile or just a fucking retard? president bush Member Fri Sep 11 06:00:03 lol Hot Rod Member Fri Sep 11 06:46:23 As usual you fucking liberals don't have the brains to read what I posted so you can go fuck yourselves. I would rather argue with a fucking iron ball, it would be far more intelligent that a stupid assed liberal.
achhnji Member	Fri Sep 11 10:09:20 elcome to the Utopia Forums! The current time is Fri Sep 11 10:08:29 2009 , You have 0 new messages. Chat on the IRC server here Utopia Talk / Politics / Regarding The *HERO* That Shouted "lie" Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:23:22 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us? roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:08:33 "Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. " The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:10:31 That really pxss off the Americans who wanted mandatory sex change with the illegals. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 20:42:10 ttt Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:41:24 Hot Rod, I'm honestly curious. Do you think that a lawyer in a certain field knows about every single judicial decision in a state he doesn't practice in? Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:44:29 Why would he? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:47:49 Hell if I know, but you suggested that law experts should know every judicial decision in the history of all 50 states in your OP. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:58:55 No, I did not. Judge Napolitano has a research staff that helps him dig up that kind of stuff when he goes on TV to talk about it. It is his job to either know, or to find out the truth before he reports on it. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:02:26 I don't care what that fat fuck judge thinks. You said that OBAMA should have known about some judicial decision in the state of California. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:14:51 No, I said he should know that depriving illegals of benefits available to everyone else is unconstitutional because he taught Constitutional Law at Columbia University. If you want to go a step farther, the committee that wrote the particular version Obama referred to should have known because they probably have at least 50 law clerks on their staff to do that kind of research. So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law or you have a President who either doesn't know the subject he taught to college law students or he does not know the Bill he is talking about, assuming the committee is on the ball, or you have a President who stood up in front of a Joint Session of Congress and The American People and told a bald faced lie. You figure it out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 22:16:51 Its not lie, because the Law will say Illegals cannot sign up for the Public option. Rod, they already get health care. Federal Law prohibits Emergency Rooms from turning ANYONE away. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:23:19 We are talking about *HEALTH INSURANCE.* If a government run health insurance plan passes in an form, the government will be Constitutionally obligated to make it available to illegal aliens. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:26:05 See Aeros, you are so fucking stupid you can't even stay on subject. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:31:57 "So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law" From your version of events, this particular case only reached the 9th Circuit. Common law precedents formed in one circuit have no explicit precedence in other circuits, so no, this was not the law in New York or any of the states not under the jurisdiction of the 9th. In short, you're either full of shit or, again, you believe that all law experts should be familiar with every single judicial case that has ever taken place in all 50 states. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:45:54 It was heard on appeal and the appeals court upheld the lower court. California appealed to The United States Supreme Court who refuse to hear it. Now I don't know why they refused to hear it, but my guess would be they had already made a similar ruling when they said that illegals were entitled to Social Security. Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:49:05 HR is quite a mind reader. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:50:44 Especially when he declared that no one can show GWB lied because no one can read his mind. Now, HR is claiming he can read BHO's mind. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:52:43 "Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us." I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? I wouldn't blame him; most lawyers and legal experts focus on common law within their own spheres of influence. For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York, instead of somewhere like Alabama or, hell, even California. Opponents of health reform should be focusing on the negatives of the bill. They should not be obsessing over and trying to pick apart every little detail of a speech that in the end was little more than grandstanding. Hrothgar Member Thu Sep 10 22:57:30 There is a time and place to discuss disagreements over what the President has said. During the middle of his speech is not the place. That guy is not a hero. He's a loud mouth and showed a distinct lack of respect for his country's leader. For over 225 years our leaders have managed for the vast majority of the time keep debate and arguments civil. They have understood that the other political party is a fellow American opponent, not an enemy. It will be better off for us all if it stays that way. The outrageous extremists on the left and right need to be slapped down when they start getting out of hand and making thing uncivil. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:30:44 Rugian - I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. Rugian - For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York... LOL, why would someone whose job it is to teach Constitutional Law even consider teaching New York Common Law to their students. I swear you are just as stupid as roland. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:37:17 Ugh, this is headache inducing. Do you even know the most basic concepts of law? From the standpoint of common law interpretations of Constitutional law, you obviously look at USSC rulings first. But then you also look at how lower level courts interpret Constitutional law in the jurisdiction that you're likely to practice law in. This is important because depending on what circuit your area falls under, you can have vastly different common law precedents regarding Constitutional law interpretations in effect. Goddamn, I try to reasonably point something out to you and you make it impossible. You truly are a gifted troll Hot Rod. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:38:48 So basically, if a district or circuit court makes a precedent-establishing ruling on an aspect of Constitutional law in your area and it never reaches the Supreme Court, you need to know about that "local" ruling. Please don't argue against this, it is practically guaranteed to make you look stupid if you do. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:43:39 Taking the New York example, someone going to Columbia and planning to practice or teach Constitutional law in New York would spend a disproportionate amount of time looking at 2nd Circuit cases, in comparison to all other circuits. Get it now? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:49:45 Oh, and just to hammer the point home and to be explicit as possible, 2nd Circuit rulings on cases that related to the application of Constitutional law in a particular matter and that were not reviewed by the Supreme Court are examples of the "common law existing in New York" that are relevant to legal experts of Constitutional law. Good night Rod. When I get up in 7 hours I expect to see that you have accepted this and moved on. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:52:54 Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change. The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and inferior courts. The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one which courts can and do ignore occasionally. In other words, when the Supreme Court decided the case of allowing Social Security to illegal aliens, there was no need to hear further cases concerning benefits for illegals. "The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change." You cannot tell me that Obama is totally unaware of the Supreme Court decision concerning illegals and Social Security. Now, you go research it and if you can prove me wrong, I will certainly listen. Beyond that, I don't give a fuck what you think. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:01:20 The USSC made no decision concerning illegals. You seem to be woefully uneducated about how precedent is set. When the USSC refuses to hear a case, as it did in this instance, it is not saying "we affirm the decision of the lower court and establish binding precedent on all lower courts in the country." It is instead saying "we refuse to either affirm or overturn the decision of the lower court. The lower court's decision is binding precedent within its own jurisdiction but is not binding anywhere else." Please learn the basics of how common law works. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:03:20 In other words, your quote about stare decisis doesn't apply. "Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority)" That's where your example fails. By refusing to hear the case, no decision was made by the USSC. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:07:45 Does it burn you to know that someone a third of your age knows so much more about the system of law that has been used to govern you for the better part of a century than you do? Ninja Member Fri Sep 11 00:57:57 "It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. " Except that if he didn't even hear about it, it isn't a lie because he did not willfully know that it would be overturned (even if you weren't blowing smoke out your ass). How can you be so fucking old yet have no fucking clue about the basics of the court system? Are you senile or just a fucking retard? president bush Member Fri Sep 11 06:00:03 lol Hot Rod Member Fri Sep 11 06:46:23 As usual you fucking liberals don't have the brains to read what I posted so you can go fuck yourselves. I would rather argue with a fucking iron ball, it would be far more intelligent that a stupid assed liberal.
achhnji Member	Fri Sep 11 10:09:20 elcome to the Utopia Forums! The current time is Fri Sep 11 10:08:29 2009 , You have 0 new messages. Chat on the IRC server here Utopia Talk / Politics / Regarding The *HERO* That Shouted "lie" Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:23:22 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us? roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:08:33 "Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. " The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:10:31 That really pxss off the Americans who wanted mandatory sex change with the illegals. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 20:42:10 ttt Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:41:24 Hot Rod, I'm honestly curious. Do you think that a lawyer in a certain field knows about every single judicial decision in a state he doesn't practice in? Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:44:29 Why would he? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:47:49 Hell if I know, but you suggested that law experts should know every judicial decision in the history of all 50 states in your OP. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:58:55 No, I did not. Judge Napolitano has a research staff that helps him dig up that kind of stuff when he goes on TV to talk about it. It is his job to either know, or to find out the truth before he reports on it. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:02:26 I don't care what that fat fuck judge thinks. You said that OBAMA should have known about some judicial decision in the state of California. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:14:51 No, I said he should know that depriving illegals of benefits available to everyone else is unconstitutional because he taught Constitutional Law at Columbia University. If you want to go a step farther, the committee that wrote the particular version Obama referred to should have known because they probably have at least 50 law clerks on their staff to do that kind of research. So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law or you have a President who either doesn't know the subject he taught to college law students or he does not know the Bill he is talking about, assuming the committee is on the ball, or you have a President who stood up in front of a Joint Session of Congress and The American People and told a bald faced lie. You figure it out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 22:16:51 Its not lie, because the Law will say Illegals cannot sign up for the Public option. Rod, they already get health care. Federal Law prohibits Emergency Rooms from turning ANYONE away. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:23:19 We are talking about *HEALTH INSURANCE.* If a government run health insurance plan passes in an form, the government will be Constitutionally obligated to make it available to illegal aliens. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:26:05 See Aeros, you are so fucking stupid you can't even stay on subject. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:31:57 "So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law" From your version of events, this particular case only reached the 9th Circuit. Common law precedents formed in one circuit have no explicit precedence in other circuits, so no, this was not the law in New York or any of the states not under the jurisdiction of the 9th. In short, you're either full of shit or, again, you believe that all law experts should be familiar with every single judicial case that has ever taken place in all 50 states. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:45:54 It was heard on appeal and the appeals court upheld the lower court. California appealed to The United States Supreme Court who refuse to hear it. Now I don't know why they refused to hear it, but my guess would be they had already made a similar ruling when they said that illegals were entitled to Social Security. Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:49:05 HR is quite a mind reader. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:50:44 Especially when he declared that no one can show GWB lied because no one can read his mind. Now, HR is claiming he can read BHO's mind. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:52:43 "Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us." I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? I wouldn't blame him; most lawyers and legal experts focus on common law within their own spheres of influence. For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York, instead of somewhere like Alabama or, hell, even California. Opponents of health reform should be focusing on the negatives of the bill. They should not be obsessing over and trying to pick apart every little detail of a speech that in the end was little more than grandstanding. Hrothgar Member Thu Sep 10 22:57:30 There is a time and place to discuss disagreements over what the President has said. During the middle of his speech is not the place. That guy is not a hero. He's a loud mouth and showed a distinct lack of respect for his country's leader. For over 225 years our leaders have managed for the vast majority of the time keep debate and arguments civil. They have understood that the other political party is a fellow American opponent, not an enemy. It will be better off for us all if it stays that way. The outrageous extremists on the left and right need to be slapped down when they start getting out of hand and making thing uncivil. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:30:44 Rugian - I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. Rugian - For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York... LOL, why would someone whose job it is to teach Constitutional Law even consider teaching New York Common Law to their students. I swear you are just as stupid as roland. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:37:17 Ugh, this is headache inducing. Do you even know the most basic concepts of law? From the standpoint of common law interpretations of Constitutional law, you obviously look at USSC rulings first. But then you also look at how lower level courts interpret Constitutional law in the jurisdiction that you're likely to practice law in. This is important because depending on what circuit your area falls under, you can have vastly different common law precedents regarding Constitutional law interpretations in effect. Goddamn, I try to reasonably point something out to you and you make it impossible. You truly are a gifted troll Hot Rod. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:38:48 So basically, if a district or circuit court makes a precedent-establishing ruling on an aspect of Constitutional law in your area and it never reaches the Supreme Court, you need to know about that "local" ruling. Please don't argue against this, it is practically guaranteed to make you look stupid if you do. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:43:39 Taking the New York example, someone going to Columbia and planning to practice or teach Constitutional law in New York would spend a disproportionate amount of time looking at 2nd Circuit cases, in comparison to all other circuits. Get it now? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:49:45 Oh, and just to hammer the point home and to be explicit as possible, 2nd Circuit rulings on cases that related to the application of Constitutional law in a particular matter and that were not reviewed by the Supreme Court are examples of the "common law existing in New York" that are relevant to legal experts of Constitutional law. Good night Rod. When I get up in 7 hours I expect to see that you have accepted this and moved on. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:52:54 Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change. The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and inferior courts. The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one which courts can and do ignore occasionally. In other words, when the Supreme Court decided the case of allowing Social Security to illegal aliens, there was no need to hear further cases concerning benefits for illegals. "The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change." You cannot tell me that Obama is totally unaware of the Supreme Court decision concerning illegals and Social Security. Now, you go research it and if you can prove me wrong, I will certainly listen. Beyond that, I don't give a fuck what you think. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:01:20 The USSC made no decision concerning illegals. You seem to be woefully uneducated about how precedent is set. When the USSC refuses to hear a case, as it did in this instance, it is not saying "we affirm the decision of the lower court and establish binding precedent on all lower courts in the country." It is instead saying "we refuse to either affirm or overturn the decision of the lower court. The lower court's decision is binding precedent within its own jurisdiction but is not binding anywhere else." Please learn the basics of how common law works. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:03:20 In other words, your quote about stare decisis doesn't apply. "Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority)" That's where your example fails. By refusing to hear the case, no decision was made by the USSC. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:07:45 Does it burn you to know that someone a third of your age knows so much more about the system of law that has been used to govern you for the better part of a century than you do? Ninja Member Fri Sep 11 00:57:57 "It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. " Except that if he didn't even hear about it, it isn't a lie because he did not willfully know that it would be overturned (even if you weren't blowing smoke out your ass). How can you be so fucking old yet have no fucking clue about the basics of the court system? Are you senile or just a fucking retard? president bush Member Fri Sep 11 06:00:03 lol Hot Rod Member Fri Sep 11 06:46:23 As usual you fucking liberals don't have the brains to read what I posted so you can go fuck yourselves. I would rather argue with a fucking iron ball, it would be far more intelligent that a stupid assed liberal.
achhnji Member	Fri Sep 11 10:09:21 elcome to the Utopia Forums! The current time is Fri Sep 11 10:08:29 2009 , You have 0 new messages. Chat on the IRC server here Utopia Talk / Politics / Regarding The *HERO* That Shouted "lie" Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:23:22 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us? roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:08:33 "Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. " The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:10:31 That really pxss off the Americans who wanted mandatory sex change with the illegals. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 20:42:10 ttt Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:41:24 Hot Rod, I'm honestly curious. Do you think that a lawyer in a certain field knows about every single judicial decision in a state he doesn't practice in? Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:44:29 Why would he? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:47:49 Hell if I know, but you suggested that law experts should know every judicial decision in the history of all 50 states in your OP. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:58:55 No, I did not. Judge Napolitano has a research staff that helps him dig up that kind of stuff when he goes on TV to talk about it. It is his job to either know, or to find out the truth before he reports on it. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:02:26 I don't care what that fat fuck judge thinks. You said that OBAMA should have known about some judicial decision in the state of California. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:14:51 No, I said he should know that depriving illegals of benefits available to everyone else is unconstitutional because he taught Constitutional Law at Columbia University. If you want to go a step farther, the committee that wrote the particular version Obama referred to should have known because they probably have at least 50 law clerks on their staff to do that kind of research. So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law or you have a President who either doesn't know the subject he taught to college law students or he does not know the Bill he is talking about, assuming the committee is on the ball, or you have a President who stood up in front of a Joint Session of Congress and The American People and told a bald faced lie. You figure it out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 22:16:51 Its not lie, because the Law will say Illegals cannot sign up for the Public option. Rod, they already get health care. Federal Law prohibits Emergency Rooms from turning ANYONE away. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:23:19 We are talking about *HEALTH INSURANCE.* If a government run health insurance plan passes in an form, the government will be Constitutionally obligated to make it available to illegal aliens. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:26:05 See Aeros, you are so fucking stupid you can't even stay on subject. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:31:57 "So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law" From your version of events, this particular case only reached the 9th Circuit. Common law precedents formed in one circuit have no explicit precedence in other circuits, so no, this was not the law in New York or any of the states not under the jurisdiction of the 9th. In short, you're either full of shit or, again, you believe that all law experts should be familiar with every single judicial case that has ever taken place in all 50 states. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:45:54 It was heard on appeal and the appeals court upheld the lower court. California appealed to The United States Supreme Court who refuse to hear it. Now I don't know why they refused to hear it, but my guess would be they had already made a similar ruling when they said that illegals were entitled to Social Security. Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:49:05 HR is quite a mind reader. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:50:44 Especially when he declared that no one can show GWB lied because no one can read his mind. Now, HR is claiming he can read BHO's mind. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:52:43 "Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us." I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? I wouldn't blame him; most lawyers and legal experts focus on common law within their own spheres of influence. For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York, instead of somewhere like Alabama or, hell, even California. Opponents of health reform should be focusing on the negatives of the bill. They should not be obsessing over and trying to pick apart every little detail of a speech that in the end was little more than grandstanding. Hrothgar Member Thu Sep 10 22:57:30 There is a time and place to discuss disagreements over what the President has said. During the middle of his speech is not the place. That guy is not a hero. He's a loud mouth and showed a distinct lack of respect for his country's leader. For over 225 years our leaders have managed for the vast majority of the time keep debate and arguments civil. They have understood that the other political party is a fellow American opponent, not an enemy. It will be better off for us all if it stays that way. The outrageous extremists on the left and right need to be slapped down when they start getting out of hand and making thing uncivil. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:30:44 Rugian - I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. Rugian - For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York... LOL, why would someone whose job it is to teach Constitutional Law even consider teaching New York Common Law to their students. I swear you are just as stupid as roland. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:37:17 Ugh, this is headache inducing. Do you even know the most basic concepts of law? From the standpoint of common law interpretations of Constitutional law, you obviously look at USSC rulings first. But then you also look at how lower level courts interpret Constitutional law in the jurisdiction that you're likely to practice law in. This is important because depending on what circuit your area falls under, you can have vastly different common law precedents regarding Constitutional law interpretations in effect. Goddamn, I try to reasonably point something out to you and you make it impossible. You truly are a gifted troll Hot Rod. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:38:48 So basically, if a district or circuit court makes a precedent-establishing ruling on an aspect of Constitutional law in your area and it never reaches the Supreme Court, you need to know about that "local" ruling. Please don't argue against this, it is practically guaranteed to make you look stupid if you do. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:43:39 Taking the New York example, someone going to Columbia and planning to practice or teach Constitutional law in New York would spend a disproportionate amount of time looking at 2nd Circuit cases, in comparison to all other circuits. Get it now? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:49:45 Oh, and just to hammer the point home and to be explicit as possible, 2nd Circuit rulings on cases that related to the application of Constitutional law in a particular matter and that were not reviewed by the Supreme Court are examples of the "common law existing in New York" that are relevant to legal experts of Constitutional law. Good night Rod. When I get up in 7 hours I expect to see that you have accepted this and moved on. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:52:54 Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change. The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and inferior courts. The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one which courts can and do ignore occasionally. In other words, when the Supreme Court decided the case of allowing Social Security to illegal aliens, there was no need to hear further cases concerning benefits for illegals. "The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change." You cannot tell me that Obama is totally unaware of the Supreme Court decision concerning illegals and Social Security. Now, you go research it and if you can prove me wrong, I will certainly listen. Beyond that, I don't give a fuck what you think. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:01:20 The USSC made no decision concerning illegals. You seem to be woefully uneducated about how precedent is set. When the USSC refuses to hear a case, as it did in this instance, it is not saying "we affirm the decision of the lower court and establish binding precedent on all lower courts in the country." It is instead saying "we refuse to either affirm or overturn the decision of the lower court. The lower court's decision is binding precedent within its own jurisdiction but is not binding anywhere else." Please learn the basics of how common law works. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:03:20 In other words, your quote about stare decisis doesn't apply. "Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority)" That's where your example fails. By refusing to hear the case, no decision was made by the USSC. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:07:45 Does it burn you to know that someone a third of your age knows so much more about the system of law that has been used to govern you for the better part of a century than you do? Ninja Member Fri Sep 11 00:57:57 "It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. " Except that if he didn't even hear about it, it isn't a lie because he did not willfully know that it would be overturned (even if you weren't blowing smoke out your ass). How can you be so fucking old yet have no fucking clue about the basics of the court system? Are you senile or just a fucking retard? president bush Member Fri Sep 11 06:00:03 lol Hot Rod Member Fri Sep 11 06:46:23 As usual you fucking liberals don't have the brains to read what I posted so you can go fuck yourselves. I would rather argue with a fucking iron ball, it would be far more intelligent that a stupid assed liberal.
achhnji Member	Fri Sep 11 10:09:21 elcome to the Utopia Forums! The current time is Fri Sep 11 10:08:29 2009 , You have 0 new messages. Chat on the IRC server here Utopia Talk / Politics / Regarding The *HERO* That Shouted "lie" Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:23:22 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us? roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:08:33 "Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. " The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:10:31 That really pxss off the Americans who wanted mandatory sex change with the illegals. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 20:42:10 ttt Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:41:24 Hot Rod, I'm honestly curious. Do you think that a lawyer in a certain field knows about every single judicial decision in a state he doesn't practice in? Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:44:29 Why would he? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:47:49 Hell if I know, but you suggested that law experts should know every judicial decision in the history of all 50 states in your OP. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:58:55 No, I did not. Judge Napolitano has a research staff that helps him dig up that kind of stuff when he goes on TV to talk about it. It is his job to either know, or to find out the truth before he reports on it. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:02:26 I don't care what that fat fuck judge thinks. You said that OBAMA should have known about some judicial decision in the state of California. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:14:51 No, I said he should know that depriving illegals of benefits available to everyone else is unconstitutional because he taught Constitutional Law at Columbia University. If you want to go a step farther, the committee that wrote the particular version Obama referred to should have known because they probably have at least 50 law clerks on their staff to do that kind of research. So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law or you have a President who either doesn't know the subject he taught to college law students or he does not know the Bill he is talking about, assuming the committee is on the ball, or you have a President who stood up in front of a Joint Session of Congress and The American People and told a bald faced lie. You figure it out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 22:16:51 Its not lie, because the Law will say Illegals cannot sign up for the Public option. Rod, they already get health care. Federal Law prohibits Emergency Rooms from turning ANYONE away. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:23:19 We are talking about *HEALTH INSURANCE.* If a government run health insurance plan passes in an form, the government will be Constitutionally obligated to make it available to illegal aliens. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:26:05 See Aeros, you are so fucking stupid you can't even stay on subject. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:31:57 "So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law" From your version of events, this particular case only reached the 9th Circuit. Common law precedents formed in one circuit have no explicit precedence in other circuits, so no, this was not the law in New York or any of the states not under the jurisdiction of the 9th. In short, you're either full of shit or, again, you believe that all law experts should be familiar with every single judicial case that has ever taken place in all 50 states. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:45:54 It was heard on appeal and the appeals court upheld the lower court. California appealed to The United States Supreme Court who refuse to hear it. Now I don't know why they refused to hear it, but my guess would be they had already made a similar ruling when they said that illegals were entitled to Social Security. Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:49:05 HR is quite a mind reader. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:50:44 Especially when he declared that no one can show GWB lied because no one can read his mind. Now, HR is claiming he can read BHO's mind. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:52:43 "Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us." I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? I wouldn't blame him; most lawyers and legal experts focus on common law within their own spheres of influence. For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York, instead of somewhere like Alabama or, hell, even California. Opponents of health reform should be focusing on the negatives of the bill. They should not be obsessing over and trying to pick apart every little detail of a speech that in the end was little more than grandstanding. Hrothgar Member Thu Sep 10 22:57:30 There is a time and place to discuss disagreements over what the President has said. During the middle of his speech is not the place. That guy is not a hero. He's a loud mouth and showed a distinct lack of respect for his country's leader. For over 225 years our leaders have managed for the vast majority of the time keep debate and arguments civil. They have understood that the other political party is a fellow American opponent, not an enemy. It will be better off for us all if it stays that way. The outrageous extremists on the left and right need to be slapped down when they start getting out of hand and making thing uncivil. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:30:44 Rugian - I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. Rugian - For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York... LOL, why would someone whose job it is to teach Constitutional Law even consider teaching New York Common Law to their students. I swear you are just as stupid as roland. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:37:17 Ugh, this is headache inducing. Do you even know the most basic concepts of law? From the standpoint of common law interpretations of Constitutional law, you obviously look at USSC rulings first. But then you also look at how lower level courts interpret Constitutional law in the jurisdiction that you're likely to practice law in. This is important because depending on what circuit your area falls under, you can have vastly different common law precedents regarding Constitutional law interpretations in effect. Goddamn, I try to reasonably point something out to you and you make it impossible. You truly are a gifted troll Hot Rod. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:38:48 So basically, if a district or circuit court makes a precedent-establishing ruling on an aspect of Constitutional law in your area and it never reaches the Supreme Court, you need to know about that "local" ruling. Please don't argue against this, it is practically guaranteed to make you look stupid if you do. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:43:39 Taking the New York example, someone going to Columbia and planning to practice or teach Constitutional law in New York would spend a disproportionate amount of time looking at 2nd Circuit cases, in comparison to all other circuits. Get it now? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:49:45 Oh, and just to hammer the point home and to be explicit as possible, 2nd Circuit rulings on cases that related to the application of Constitutional law in a particular matter and that were not reviewed by the Supreme Court are examples of the "common law existing in New York" that are relevant to legal experts of Constitutional law. Good night Rod. When I get up in 7 hours I expect to see that you have accepted this and moved on. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:52:54 Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change. The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and inferior courts. The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one which courts can and do ignore occasionally. In other words, when the Supreme Court decided the case of allowing Social Security to illegal aliens, there was no need to hear further cases concerning benefits for illegals. "The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change." You cannot tell me that Obama is totally unaware of the Supreme Court decision concerning illegals and Social Security. Now, you go research it and if you can prove me wrong, I will certainly listen. Beyond that, I don't give a fuck what you think. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:01:20 The USSC made no decision concerning illegals. You seem to be woefully uneducated about how precedent is set. When the USSC refuses to hear a case, as it did in this instance, it is not saying "we affirm the decision of the lower court and establish binding precedent on all lower courts in the country." It is instead saying "we refuse to either affirm or overturn the decision of the lower court. The lower court's decision is binding precedent within its own jurisdiction but is not binding anywhere else." Please learn the basics of how common law works. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:03:20 In other words, your quote about stare decisis doesn't apply. "Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority)" That's where your example fails. By refusing to hear the case, no decision was made by the USSC. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:07:45 Does it burn you to know that someone a third of your age knows so much more about the system of law that has been used to govern you for the better part of a century than you do? Ninja Member Fri Sep 11 00:57:57 "It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. " Except that if he didn't even hear about it, it isn't a lie because he did not willfully know that it would be overturned (even if you weren't blowing smoke out your ass). How can you be so fucking old yet have no fucking clue about the basics of the court system? Are you senile or just a fucking retard? president bush Member Fri Sep 11 06:00:03 lol Hot Rod Member Fri Sep 11 06:46:23 As usual you fucking liberals don't have the brains to read what I posted so you can go fuck yourselves. I would rather argue with a fucking iron ball, it would be far more intelligent that a stupid assed liberal.
achhnji Member	Fri Sep 11 10:09:21 elcome to the Utopia Forums! The current time is Fri Sep 11 10:08:29 2009 , You have 0 new messages. Chat on the IRC server here Utopia Talk / Politics / Regarding The *HERO* That Shouted "lie" Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:23:22 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us? roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:08:33 "Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. " The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:10:31 That really pxss off the Americans who wanted mandatory sex change with the illegals. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 20:42:10 ttt Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:41:24 Hot Rod, I'm honestly curious. Do you think that a lawyer in a certain field knows about every single judicial decision in a state he doesn't practice in? Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:44:29 Why would he? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:47:49 Hell if I know, but you suggested that law experts should know every judicial decision in the history of all 50 states in your OP. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:58:55 No, I did not. Judge Napolitano has a research staff that helps him dig up that kind of stuff when he goes on TV to talk about it. It is his job to either know, or to find out the truth before he reports on it. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:02:26 I don't care what that fat fuck judge thinks. You said that OBAMA should have known about some judicial decision in the state of California. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:14:51 No, I said he should know that depriving illegals of benefits available to everyone else is unconstitutional because he taught Constitutional Law at Columbia University. If you want to go a step farther, the committee that wrote the particular version Obama referred to should have known because they probably have at least 50 law clerks on their staff to do that kind of research. So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law or you have a President who either doesn't know the subject he taught to college law students or he does not know the Bill he is talking about, assuming the committee is on the ball, or you have a President who stood up in front of a Joint Session of Congress and The American People and told a bald faced lie. You figure it out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 22:16:51 Its not lie, because the Law will say Illegals cannot sign up for the Public option. Rod, they already get health care. Federal Law prohibits Emergency Rooms from turning ANYONE away. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:23:19 We are talking about *HEALTH INSURANCE.* If a government run health insurance plan passes in an form, the government will be Constitutionally obligated to make it available to illegal aliens. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:26:05 See Aeros, you are so fucking stupid you can't even stay on subject. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:31:57 "So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law" From your version of events, this particular case only reached the 9th Circuit. Common law precedents formed in one circuit have no explicit precedence in other circuits, so no, this was not the law in New York or any of the states not under the jurisdiction of the 9th. In short, you're either full of shit or, again, you believe that all law experts should be familiar with every single judicial case that has ever taken place in all 50 states. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:45:54 It was heard on appeal and the appeals court upheld the lower court. California appealed to The United States Supreme Court who refuse to hear it. Now I don't know why they refused to hear it, but my guess would be they had already made a similar ruling when they said that illegals were entitled to Social Security. Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:49:05 HR is quite a mind reader. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:50:44 Especially when he declared that no one can show GWB lied because no one can read his mind. Now, HR is claiming he can read BHO's mind. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:52:43 "Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us." I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? I wouldn't blame him; most lawyers and legal experts focus on common law within their own spheres of influence. For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York, instead of somewhere like Alabama or, hell, even California. Opponents of health reform should be focusing on the negatives of the bill. They should not be obsessing over and trying to pick apart every little detail of a speech that in the end was little more than grandstanding. Hrothgar Member Thu Sep 10 22:57:30 There is a time and place to discuss disagreements over what the President has said. During the middle of his speech is not the place. That guy is not a hero. He's a loud mouth and showed a distinct lack of respect for his country's leader. For over 225 years our leaders have managed for the vast majority of the time keep debate and arguments civil. They have understood that the other political party is a fellow American opponent, not an enemy. It will be better off for us all if it stays that way. The outrageous extremists on the left and right need to be slapped down when they start getting out of hand and making thing uncivil. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:30:44 Rugian - I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. Rugian - For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York... LOL, why would someone whose job it is to teach Constitutional Law even consider teaching New York Common Law to their students. I swear you are just as stupid as roland. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:37:17 Ugh, this is headache inducing. Do you even know the most basic concepts of law? From the standpoint of common law interpretations of Constitutional law, you obviously look at USSC rulings first. But then you also look at how lower level courts interpret Constitutional law in the jurisdiction that you're likely to practice law in. This is important because depending on what circuit your area falls under, you can have vastly different common law precedents regarding Constitutional law interpretations in effect. Goddamn, I try to reasonably point something out to you and you make it impossible. You truly are a gifted troll Hot Rod. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:38:48 So basically, if a district or circuit court makes a precedent-establishing ruling on an aspect of Constitutional law in your area and it never reaches the Supreme Court, you need to know about that "local" ruling. Please don't argue against this, it is practically guaranteed to make you look stupid if you do. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:43:39 Taking the New York example, someone going to Columbia and planning to practice or teach Constitutional law in New York would spend a disproportionate amount of time looking at 2nd Circuit cases, in comparison to all other circuits. Get it now? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:49:45 Oh, and just to hammer the point home and to be explicit as possible, 2nd Circuit rulings on cases that related to the application of Constitutional law in a particular matter and that were not reviewed by the Supreme Court are examples of the "common law existing in New York" that are relevant to legal experts of Constitutional law. Good night Rod. When I get up in 7 hours I expect to see that you have accepted this and moved on. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:52:54 Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change. The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and inferior courts. The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one which courts can and do ignore occasionally. In other words, when the Supreme Court decided the case of allowing Social Security to illegal aliens, there was no need to hear further cases concerning benefits for illegals. "The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change." You cannot tell me that Obama is totally unaware of the Supreme Court decision concerning illegals and Social Security. Now, you go research it and if you can prove me wrong, I will certainly listen. Beyond that, I don't give a fuck what you think. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:01:20 The USSC made no decision concerning illegals. You seem to be woefully uneducated about how precedent is set. When the USSC refuses to hear a case, as it did in this instance, it is not saying "we affirm the decision of the lower court and establish binding precedent on all lower courts in the country." It is instead saying "we refuse to either affirm or overturn the decision of the lower court. The lower court's decision is binding precedent within its own jurisdiction but is not binding anywhere else." Please learn the basics of how common law works. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:03:20 In other words, your quote about stare decisis doesn't apply. "Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority)" That's where your example fails. By refusing to hear the case, no decision was made by the USSC. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:07:45 Does it burn you to know that someone a third of your age knows so much more about the system of law that has been used to govern you for the better part of a century than you do? Ninja Member Fri Sep 11 00:57:57 "It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. " Except that if he didn't even hear about it, it isn't a lie because he did not willfully know that it would be overturned (even if you weren't blowing smoke out your ass). How can you be so fucking old yet have no fucking clue about the basics of the court system? Are you senile or just a fucking retard? president bush Member Fri Sep 11 06:00:03 lol Hot Rod Member Fri Sep 11 06:46:23 As usual you fucking liberals don't have the brains to read what I posted so you can go fuck yourselves. I would rather argue with a fucking iron ball, it would be far more intelligent that a stupid assed liberal.
achhnji Member	Fri Sep 11 10:09:21 elcome to the Utopia Forums! The current time is Fri Sep 11 10:08:29 2009 , You have 0 new messages. Chat on the IRC server here Utopia Talk / Politics / Regarding The *HERO* That Shouted "lie" Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:23:22 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us? roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:08:33 "Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. " The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:10:31 That really pxss off the Americans who wanted mandatory sex change with the illegals. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 20:42:10 ttt Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:41:24 Hot Rod, I'm honestly curious. Do you think that a lawyer in a certain field knows about every single judicial decision in a state he doesn't practice in? Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:44:29 Why would he? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:47:49 Hell if I know, but you suggested that law experts should know every judicial decision in the history of all 50 states in your OP. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:58:55 No, I did not. Judge Napolitano has a research staff that helps him dig up that kind of stuff when he goes on TV to talk about it. It is his job to either know, or to find out the truth before he reports on it. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:02:26 I don't care what that fat fuck judge thinks. You said that OBAMA should have known about some judicial decision in the state of California. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:14:51 No, I said he should know that depriving illegals of benefits available to everyone else is unconstitutional because he taught Constitutional Law at Columbia University. If you want to go a step farther, the committee that wrote the particular version Obama referred to should have known because they probably have at least 50 law clerks on their staff to do that kind of research. So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law or you have a President who either doesn't know the subject he taught to college law students or he does not know the Bill he is talking about, assuming the committee is on the ball, or you have a President who stood up in front of a Joint Session of Congress and The American People and told a bald faced lie. You figure it out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 22:16:51 Its not lie, because the Law will say Illegals cannot sign up for the Public option. Rod, they already get health care. Federal Law prohibits Emergency Rooms from turning ANYONE away. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:23:19 We are talking about *HEALTH INSURANCE.* If a government run health insurance plan passes in an form, the government will be Constitutionally obligated to make it available to illegal aliens. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:26:05 See Aeros, you are so fucking stupid you can't even stay on subject. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:31:57 "So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law" From your version of events, this particular case only reached the 9th Circuit. Common law precedents formed in one circuit have no explicit precedence in other circuits, so no, this was not the law in New York or any of the states not under the jurisdiction of the 9th. In short, you're either full of shit or, again, you believe that all law experts should be familiar with every single judicial case that has ever taken place in all 50 states. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:45:54 It was heard on appeal and the appeals court upheld the lower court. California appealed to The United States Supreme Court who refuse to hear it. Now I don't know why they refused to hear it, but my guess would be they had already made a similar ruling when they said that illegals were entitled to Social Security. Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:49:05 HR is quite a mind reader. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:50:44 Especially when he declared that no one can show GWB lied because no one can read his mind. Now, HR is claiming he can read BHO's mind. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:52:43 "Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us." I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? I wouldn't blame him; most lawyers and legal experts focus on common law within their own spheres of influence. For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York, instead of somewhere like Alabama or, hell, even California. Opponents of health reform should be focusing on the negatives of the bill. They should not be obsessing over and trying to pick apart every little detail of a speech that in the end was little more than grandstanding. Hrothgar Member Thu Sep 10 22:57:30 There is a time and place to discuss disagreements over what the President has said. During the middle of his speech is not the place. That guy is not a hero. He's a loud mouth and showed a distinct lack of respect for his country's leader. For over 225 years our leaders have managed for the vast majority of the time keep debate and arguments civil. They have understood that the other political party is a fellow American opponent, not an enemy. It will be better off for us all if it stays that way. The outrageous extremists on the left and right need to be slapped down when they start getting out of hand and making thing uncivil. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:30:44 Rugian - I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. Rugian - For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York... LOL, why would someone whose job it is to teach Constitutional Law even consider teaching New York Common Law to their students. I swear you are just as stupid as roland. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:37:17 Ugh, this is headache inducing. Do you even know the most basic concepts of law? From the standpoint of common law interpretations of Constitutional law, you obviously look at USSC rulings first. But then you also look at how lower level courts interpret Constitutional law in the jurisdiction that you're likely to practice law in. This is important because depending on what circuit your area falls under, you can have vastly different common law precedents regarding Constitutional law interpretations in effect. Goddamn, I try to reasonably point something out to you and you make it impossible. You truly are a gifted troll Hot Rod. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:38:48 So basically, if a district or circuit court makes a precedent-establishing ruling on an aspect of Constitutional law in your area and it never reaches the Supreme Court, you need to know about that "local" ruling. Please don't argue against this, it is practically guaranteed to make you look stupid if you do. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:43:39 Taking the New York example, someone going to Columbia and planning to practice or teach Constitutional law in New York would spend a disproportionate amount of time looking at 2nd Circuit cases, in comparison to all other circuits. Get it now? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:49:45 Oh, and just to hammer the point home and to be explicit as possible, 2nd Circuit rulings on cases that related to the application of Constitutional law in a particular matter and that were not reviewed by the Supreme Court are examples of the "common law existing in New York" that are relevant to legal experts of Constitutional law. Good night Rod. When I get up in 7 hours I expect to see that you have accepted this and moved on. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:52:54 Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change. The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and inferior courts. The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one which courts can and do ignore occasionally. In other words, when the Supreme Court decided the case of allowing Social Security to illegal aliens, there was no need to hear further cases concerning benefits for illegals. "The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change." You cannot tell me that Obama is totally unaware of the Supreme Court decision concerning illegals and Social Security. Now, you go research it and if you can prove me wrong, I will certainly listen. Beyond that, I don't give a fuck what you think. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:01:20 The USSC made no decision concerning illegals. You seem to be woefully uneducated about how precedent is set. When the USSC refuses to hear a case, as it did in this instance, it is not saying "we affirm the decision of the lower court and establish binding precedent on all lower courts in the country." It is instead saying "we refuse to either affirm or overturn the decision of the lower court. The lower court's decision is binding precedent within its own jurisdiction but is not binding anywhere else." Please learn the basics of how common law works. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:03:20 In other words, your quote about stare decisis doesn't apply. "Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority)" That's where your example fails. By refusing to hear the case, no decision was made by the USSC. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:07:45 Does it burn you to know that someone a third of your age knows so much more about the system of law that has been used to govern you for the better part of a century than you do? Ninja Member Fri Sep 11 00:57:57 "It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. " Except that if he didn't even hear about it, it isn't a lie because he did not willfully know that it would be overturned (even if you weren't blowing smoke out your ass). How can you be so fucking old yet have no fucking clue about the basics of the court system? Are you senile or just a fucking retard? president bush Member Fri Sep 11 06:00:03 lol Hot Rod Member Fri Sep 11 06:46:23 As usual you fucking liberals don't have the brains to read what I posted so you can go fuck yourselves. I would rather argue with a fucking iron ball, it would be far more intelligent that a stupid assed liberal.
achhnji Member	Fri Sep 11 10:09:22 elcome to the Utopia Forums! The current time is Fri Sep 11 10:08:29 2009 , You have 0 new messages. Chat on the IRC server here Utopia Talk / Politics / Regarding The *HERO* That Shouted "lie" Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:23:22 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us? roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:08:33 "Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. " The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:10:31 That really pxss off the Americans who wanted mandatory sex change with the illegals. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 20:42:10 ttt Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:41:24 Hot Rod, I'm honestly curious. Do you think that a lawyer in a certain field knows about every single judicial decision in a state he doesn't practice in? Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:44:29 Why would he? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:47:49 Hell if I know, but you suggested that law experts should know every judicial decision in the history of all 50 states in your OP. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:58:55 No, I did not. Judge Napolitano has a research staff that helps him dig up that kind of stuff when he goes on TV to talk about it. It is his job to either know, or to find out the truth before he reports on it. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:02:26 I don't care what that fat fuck judge thinks. You said that OBAMA should have known about some judicial decision in the state of California. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:14:51 No, I said he should know that depriving illegals of benefits available to everyone else is unconstitutional because he taught Constitutional Law at Columbia University. If you want to go a step farther, the committee that wrote the particular version Obama referred to should have known because they probably have at least 50 law clerks on their staff to do that kind of research. So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law or you have a President who either doesn't know the subject he taught to college law students or he does not know the Bill he is talking about, assuming the committee is on the ball, or you have a President who stood up in front of a Joint Session of Congress and The American People and told a bald faced lie. You figure it out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 22:16:51 Its not lie, because the Law will say Illegals cannot sign up for the Public option. Rod, they already get health care. Federal Law prohibits Emergency Rooms from turning ANYONE away. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:23:19 We are talking about *HEALTH INSURANCE.* If a government run health insurance plan passes in an form, the government will be Constitutionally obligated to make it available to illegal aliens. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:26:05 See Aeros, you are so fucking stupid you can't even stay on subject. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:31:57 "So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law" From your version of events, this particular case only reached the 9th Circuit. Common law precedents formed in one circuit have no explicit precedence in other circuits, so no, this was not the law in New York or any of the states not under the jurisdiction of the 9th. In short, you're either full of shit or, again, you believe that all law experts should be familiar with every single judicial case that has ever taken place in all 50 states. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:45:54 It was heard on appeal and the appeals court upheld the lower court. California appealed to The United States Supreme Court who refuse to hear it. Now I don't know why they refused to hear it, but my guess would be they had already made a similar ruling when they said that illegals were entitled to Social Security. Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:49:05 HR is quite a mind reader. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:50:44 Especially when he declared that no one can show GWB lied because no one can read his mind. Now, HR is claiming he can read BHO's mind. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:52:43 "Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us." I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? I wouldn't blame him; most lawyers and legal experts focus on common law within their own spheres of influence. For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York, instead of somewhere like Alabama or, hell, even California. Opponents of health reform should be focusing on the negatives of the bill. They should not be obsessing over and trying to pick apart every little detail of a speech that in the end was little more than grandstanding. Hrothgar Member Thu Sep 10 22:57:30 There is a time and place to discuss disagreements over what the President has said. During the middle of his speech is not the place. That guy is not a hero. He's a loud mouth and showed a distinct lack of respect for his country's leader. For over 225 years our leaders have managed for the vast majority of the time keep debate and arguments civil. They have understood that the other political party is a fellow American opponent, not an enemy. It will be better off for us all if it stays that way. The outrageous extremists on the left and right need to be slapped down when they start getting out of hand and making thing uncivil. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:30:44 Rugian - I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. Rugian - For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York... LOL, why would someone whose job it is to teach Constitutional Law even consider teaching New York Common Law to their students. I swear you are just as stupid as roland. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:37:17 Ugh, this is headache inducing. Do you even know the most basic concepts of law? From the standpoint of common law interpretations of Constitutional law, you obviously look at USSC rulings first. But then you also look at how lower level courts interpret Constitutional law in the jurisdiction that you're likely to practice law in. This is important because depending on what circuit your area falls under, you can have vastly different common law precedents regarding Constitutional law interpretations in effect. Goddamn, I try to reasonably point something out to you and you make it impossible. You truly are a gifted troll Hot Rod. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:38:48 So basically, if a district or circuit court makes a precedent-establishing ruling on an aspect of Constitutional law in your area and it never reaches the Supreme Court, you need to know about that "local" ruling. Please don't argue against this, it is practically guaranteed to make you look stupid if you do. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:43:39 Taking the New York example, someone going to Columbia and planning to practice or teach Constitutional law in New York would spend a disproportionate amount of time looking at 2nd Circuit cases, in comparison to all other circuits. Get it now? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:49:45 Oh, and just to hammer the point home and to be explicit as possible, 2nd Circuit rulings on cases that related to the application of Constitutional law in a particular matter and that were not reviewed by the Supreme Court are examples of the "common law existing in New York" that are relevant to legal experts of Constitutional law. Good night Rod. When I get up in 7 hours I expect to see that you have accepted this and moved on. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:52:54 Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change. The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and inferior courts. The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one which courts can and do ignore occasionally. In other words, when the Supreme Court decided the case of allowing Social Security to illegal aliens, there was no need to hear further cases concerning benefits for illegals. "The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change." You cannot tell me that Obama is totally unaware of the Supreme Court decision concerning illegals and Social Security. Now, you go research it and if you can prove me wrong, I will certainly listen. Beyond that, I don't give a fuck what you think. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:01:20 The USSC made no decision concerning illegals. You seem to be woefully uneducated about how precedent is set. When the USSC refuses to hear a case, as it did in this instance, it is not saying "we affirm the decision of the lower court and establish binding precedent on all lower courts in the country." It is instead saying "we refuse to either affirm or overturn the decision of the lower court. The lower court's decision is binding precedent within its own jurisdiction but is not binding anywhere else." Please learn the basics of how common law works. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:03:20 In other words, your quote about stare decisis doesn't apply. "Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority)" That's where your example fails. By refusing to hear the case, no decision was made by the USSC. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:07:45 Does it burn you to know that someone a third of your age knows so much more about the system of law that has been used to govern you for the better part of a century than you do? Ninja Member Fri Sep 11 00:57:57 "It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. " Except that if he didn't even hear about it, it isn't a lie because he did not willfully know that it would be overturned (even if you weren't blowing smoke out your ass). How can you be so fucking old yet have no fucking clue about the basics of the court system? Are you senile or just a fucking retard? president bush Member Fri Sep 11 06:00:03 lol Hot Rod Member Fri Sep 11 06:46:23 As usual you fucking liberals don't have the brains to read what I posted so you can go fuck yourselves. I would rather argue with a fucking iron ball, it would be far more intelligent that a stupid assed liberal.
achhnji Member	Fri Sep 11 10:09:22 elcome to the Utopia Forums! The current time is Fri Sep 11 10:08:29 2009 , You have 0 new messages. Chat on the IRC server here Utopia Talk / Politics / Regarding The *HERO* That Shouted "lie" Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:23:22 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us? roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:08:33 "Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. " The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:10:31 That really pxss off the Americans who wanted mandatory sex change with the illegals. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 20:42:10 ttt Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:41:24 Hot Rod, I'm honestly curious. Do you think that a lawyer in a certain field knows about every single judicial decision in a state he doesn't practice in? Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:44:29 Why would he? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:47:49 Hell if I know, but you suggested that law experts should know every judicial decision in the history of all 50 states in your OP. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:58:55 No, I did not. Judge Napolitano has a research staff that helps him dig up that kind of stuff when he goes on TV to talk about it. It is his job to either know, or to find out the truth before he reports on it. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:02:26 I don't care what that fat fuck judge thinks. You said that OBAMA should have known about some judicial decision in the state of California. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:14:51 No, I said he should know that depriving illegals of benefits available to everyone else is unconstitutional because he taught Constitutional Law at Columbia University. If you want to go a step farther, the committee that wrote the particular version Obama referred to should have known because they probably have at least 50 law clerks on their staff to do that kind of research. So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law or you have a President who either doesn't know the subject he taught to college law students or he does not know the Bill he is talking about, assuming the committee is on the ball, or you have a President who stood up in front of a Joint Session of Congress and The American People and told a bald faced lie. You figure it out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 22:16:51 Its not lie, because the Law will say Illegals cannot sign up for the Public option. Rod, they already get health care. Federal Law prohibits Emergency Rooms from turning ANYONE away. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:23:19 We are talking about *HEALTH INSURANCE.* If a government run health insurance plan passes in an form, the government will be Constitutionally obligated to make it available to illegal aliens. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:26:05 See Aeros, you are so fucking stupid you can't even stay on subject. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:31:57 "So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law" From your version of events, this particular case only reached the 9th Circuit. Common law precedents formed in one circuit have no explicit precedence in other circuits, so no, this was not the law in New York or any of the states not under the jurisdiction of the 9th. In short, you're either full of shit or, again, you believe that all law experts should be familiar with every single judicial case that has ever taken place in all 50 states. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:45:54 It was heard on appeal and the appeals court upheld the lower court. California appealed to The United States Supreme Court who refuse to hear it. Now I don't know why they refused to hear it, but my guess would be they had already made a similar ruling when they said that illegals were entitled to Social Security. Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:49:05 HR is quite a mind reader. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:50:44 Especially when he declared that no one can show GWB lied because no one can read his mind. Now, HR is claiming he can read BHO's mind. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:52:43 "Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us." I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? I wouldn't blame him; most lawyers and legal experts focus on common law within their own spheres of influence. For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York, instead of somewhere like Alabama or, hell, even California. Opponents of health reform should be focusing on the negatives of the bill. They should not be obsessing over and trying to pick apart every little detail of a speech that in the end was little more than grandstanding. Hrothgar Member Thu Sep 10 22:57:30 There is a time and place to discuss disagreements over what the President has said. During the middle of his speech is not the place. That guy is not a hero. He's a loud mouth and showed a distinct lack of respect for his country's leader. For over 225 years our leaders have managed for the vast majority of the time keep debate and arguments civil. They have understood that the other political party is a fellow American opponent, not an enemy. It will be better off for us all if it stays that way. The outrageous extremists on the left and right need to be slapped down when they start getting out of hand and making thing uncivil. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:30:44 Rugian - I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. Rugian - For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York... LOL, why would someone whose job it is to teach Constitutional Law even consider teaching New York Common Law to their students. I swear you are just as stupid as roland. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:37:17 Ugh, this is headache inducing. Do you even know the most basic concepts of law? From the standpoint of common law interpretations of Constitutional law, you obviously look at USSC rulings first. But then you also look at how lower level courts interpret Constitutional law in the jurisdiction that you're likely to practice law in. This is important because depending on what circuit your area falls under, you can have vastly different common law precedents regarding Constitutional law interpretations in effect. Goddamn, I try to reasonably point something out to you and you make it impossible. You truly are a gifted troll Hot Rod. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:38:48 So basically, if a district or circuit court makes a precedent-establishing ruling on an aspect of Constitutional law in your area and it never reaches the Supreme Court, you need to know about that "local" ruling. Please don't argue against this, it is practically guaranteed to make you look stupid if you do. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:43:39 Taking the New York example, someone going to Columbia and planning to practice or teach Constitutional law in New York would spend a disproportionate amount of time looking at 2nd Circuit cases, in comparison to all other circuits. Get it now? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:49:45 Oh, and just to hammer the point home and to be explicit as possible, 2nd Circuit rulings on cases that related to the application of Constitutional law in a particular matter and that were not reviewed by the Supreme Court are examples of the "common law existing in New York" that are relevant to legal experts of Constitutional law. Good night Rod. When I get up in 7 hours I expect to see that you have accepted this and moved on. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:52:54 Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change. The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and inferior courts. The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one which courts can and do ignore occasionally. In other words, when the Supreme Court decided the case of allowing Social Security to illegal aliens, there was no need to hear further cases concerning benefits for illegals. "The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change." You cannot tell me that Obama is totally unaware of the Supreme Court decision concerning illegals and Social Security. Now, you go research it and if you can prove me wrong, I will certainly listen. Beyond that, I don't give a fuck what you think. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:01:20 The USSC made no decision concerning illegals. You seem to be woefully uneducated about how precedent is set. When the USSC refuses to hear a case, as it did in this instance, it is not saying "we affirm the decision of the lower court and establish binding precedent on all lower courts in the country." It is instead saying "we refuse to either affirm or overturn the decision of the lower court. The lower court's decision is binding precedent within its own jurisdiction but is not binding anywhere else." Please learn the basics of how common law works. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:03:20 In other words, your quote about stare decisis doesn't apply. "Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority)" That's where your example fails. By refusing to hear the case, no decision was made by the USSC. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:07:45 Does it burn you to know that someone a third of your age knows so much more about the system of law that has been used to govern you for the better part of a century than you do? Ninja Member Fri Sep 11 00:57:57 "It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. " Except that if he didn't even hear about it, it isn't a lie because he did not willfully know that it would be overturned (even if you weren't blowing smoke out your ass). How can you be so fucking old yet have no fucking clue about the basics of the court system? Are you senile or just a fucking retard? president bush Member Fri Sep 11 06:00:03 lol Hot Rod Member Fri Sep 11 06:46:23 As usual you fucking liberals don't have the brains to read what I posted so you can go fuck yourselves. I would rather argue with a fucking iron ball, it would be far more intelligent that a stupid assed liberal.
achhnji Member	Fri Sep 11 10:09:23 elcome to the Utopia Forums! The current time is Fri Sep 11 10:08:29 2009 , You have 0 new messages. Chat on the IRC server here Utopia Talk / Politics / Regarding The *HERO* That Shouted "lie" Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:23:22 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us? roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:08:33 "Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. " The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:10:31 That really pxss off the Americans who wanted mandatory sex change with the illegals. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 20:42:10 ttt Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:41:24 Hot Rod, I'm honestly curious. Do you think that a lawyer in a certain field knows about every single judicial decision in a state he doesn't practice in? Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:44:29 Why would he? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:47:49 Hell if I know, but you suggested that law experts should know every judicial decision in the history of all 50 states in your OP. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:58:55 No, I did not. Judge Napolitano has a research staff that helps him dig up that kind of stuff when he goes on TV to talk about it. It is his job to either know, or to find out the truth before he reports on it. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:02:26 I don't care what that fat fuck judge thinks. You said that OBAMA should have known about some judicial decision in the state of California. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:14:51 No, I said he should know that depriving illegals of benefits available to everyone else is unconstitutional because he taught Constitutional Law at Columbia University. If you want to go a step farther, the committee that wrote the particular version Obama referred to should have known because they probably have at least 50 law clerks on their staff to do that kind of research. So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law or you have a President who either doesn't know the subject he taught to college law students or he does not know the Bill he is talking about, assuming the committee is on the ball, or you have a President who stood up in front of a Joint Session of Congress and The American People and told a bald faced lie. You figure it out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 22:16:51 Its not lie, because the Law will say Illegals cannot sign up for the Public option. Rod, they already get health care. Federal Law prohibits Emergency Rooms from turning ANYONE away. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:23:19 We are talking about *HEALTH INSURANCE.* If a government run health insurance plan passes in an form, the government will be Constitutionally obligated to make it available to illegal aliens. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:26:05 See Aeros, you are so fucking stupid you can't even stay on subject. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:31:57 "So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law" From your version of events, this particular case only reached the 9th Circuit. Common law precedents formed in one circuit have no explicit precedence in other circuits, so no, this was not the law in New York or any of the states not under the jurisdiction of the 9th. In short, you're either full of shit or, again, you believe that all law experts should be familiar with every single judicial case that has ever taken place in all 50 states. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:45:54 It was heard on appeal and the appeals court upheld the lower court. California appealed to The United States Supreme Court who refuse to hear it. Now I don't know why they refused to hear it, but my guess would be they had already made a similar ruling when they said that illegals were entitled to Social Security. Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:49:05 HR is quite a mind reader. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:50:44 Especially when he declared that no one can show GWB lied because no one can read his mind. Now, HR is claiming he can read BHO's mind. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:52:43 "Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us." I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? I wouldn't blame him; most lawyers and legal experts focus on common law within their own spheres of influence. For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York, instead of somewhere like Alabama or, hell, even California. Opponents of health reform should be focusing on the negatives of the bill. They should not be obsessing over and trying to pick apart every little detail of a speech that in the end was little more than grandstanding. Hrothgar Member Thu Sep 10 22:57:30 There is a time and place to discuss disagreements over what the President has said. During the middle of his speech is not the place. That guy is not a hero. He's a loud mouth and showed a distinct lack of respect for his country's leader. For over 225 years our leaders have managed for the vast majority of the time keep debate and arguments civil. They have understood that the other political party is a fellow American opponent, not an enemy. It will be better off for us all if it stays that way. The outrageous extremists on the left and right need to be slapped down when they start getting out of hand and making thing uncivil. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:30:44 Rugian - I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. Rugian - For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York... LOL, why would someone whose job it is to teach Constitutional Law even consider teaching New York Common Law to their students. I swear you are just as stupid as roland. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:37:17 Ugh, this is headache inducing. Do you even know the most basic concepts of law? From the standpoint of common law interpretations of Constitutional law, you obviously look at USSC rulings first. But then you also look at how lower level courts interpret Constitutional law in the jurisdiction that you're likely to practice law in. This is important because depending on what circuit your area falls under, you can have vastly different common law precedents regarding Constitutional law interpretations in effect. Goddamn, I try to reasonably point something out to you and you make it impossible. You truly are a gifted troll Hot Rod. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:38:48 So basically, if a district or circuit court makes a precedent-establishing ruling on an aspect of Constitutional law in your area and it never reaches the Supreme Court, you need to know about that "local" ruling. Please don't argue against this, it is practically guaranteed to make you look stupid if you do. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:43:39 Taking the New York example, someone going to Columbia and planning to practice or teach Constitutional law in New York would spend a disproportionate amount of time looking at 2nd Circuit cases, in comparison to all other circuits. Get it now? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:49:45 Oh, and just to hammer the point home and to be explicit as possible, 2nd Circuit rulings on cases that related to the application of Constitutional law in a particular matter and that were not reviewed by the Supreme Court are examples of the "common law existing in New York" that are relevant to legal experts of Constitutional law. Good night Rod. When I get up in 7 hours I expect to see that you have accepted this and moved on. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:52:54 Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change. The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and inferior courts. The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one which courts can and do ignore occasionally. In other words, when the Supreme Court decided the case of allowing Social Security to illegal aliens, there was no need to hear further cases concerning benefits for illegals. "The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change." You cannot tell me that Obama is totally unaware of the Supreme Court decision concerning illegals and Social Security. Now, you go research it and if you can prove me wrong, I will certainly listen. Beyond that, I don't give a fuck what you think. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:01:20 The USSC made no decision concerning illegals. You seem to be woefully uneducated about how precedent is set. When the USSC refuses to hear a case, as it did in this instance, it is not saying "we affirm the decision of the lower court and establish binding precedent on all lower courts in the country." It is instead saying "we refuse to either affirm or overturn the decision of the lower court. The lower court's decision is binding precedent within its own jurisdiction but is not binding anywhere else." Please learn the basics of how common law works. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:03:20 In other words, your quote about stare decisis doesn't apply. "Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority)" That's where your example fails. By refusing to hear the case, no decision was made by the USSC. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:07:45 Does it burn you to know that someone a third of your age knows so much more about the system of law that has been used to govern you for the better part of a century than you do? Ninja Member Fri Sep 11 00:57:57 "It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. " Except that if he didn't even hear about it, it isn't a lie because he did not willfully know that it would be overturned (even if you weren't blowing smoke out your ass). How can you be so fucking old yet have no fucking clue about the basics of the court system? Are you senile or just a fucking retard? president bush Member Fri Sep 11 06:00:03 lol Hot Rod Member Fri Sep 11 06:46:23 As usual you fucking liberals don't have the brains to read what I posted so you can go fuck yourselves. I would rather argue with a fucking iron ball, it would be far more intelligent that a stupid assed liberal.
achhnji Member	Fri Sep 11 10:09:23 elcome to the Utopia Forums! The current time is Fri Sep 11 10:08:29 2009 , You have 0 new messages. Chat on the IRC server here Utopia Talk / Politics / Regarding The *HERO* That Shouted "lie" Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:23:22 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us? roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:08:33 "Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. " The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:10:31 That really pxss off the Americans who wanted mandatory sex change with the illegals. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 20:42:10 ttt Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:41:24 Hot Rod, I'm honestly curious. Do you think that a lawyer in a certain field knows about every single judicial decision in a state he doesn't practice in? Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:44:29 Why would he? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:47:49 Hell if I know, but you suggested that law experts should know every judicial decision in the history of all 50 states in your OP. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:58:55 No, I did not. Judge Napolitano has a research staff that helps him dig up that kind of stuff when he goes on TV to talk about it. It is his job to either know, or to find out the truth before he reports on it. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:02:26 I don't care what that fat fuck judge thinks. You said that OBAMA should have known about some judicial decision in the state of California. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:14:51 No, I said he should know that depriving illegals of benefits available to everyone else is unconstitutional because he taught Constitutional Law at Columbia University. If you want to go a step farther, the committee that wrote the particular version Obama referred to should have known because they probably have at least 50 law clerks on their staff to do that kind of research. So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law or you have a President who either doesn't know the subject he taught to college law students or he does not know the Bill he is talking about, assuming the committee is on the ball, or you have a President who stood up in front of a Joint Session of Congress and The American People and told a bald faced lie. You figure it out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 22:16:51 Its not lie, because the Law will say Illegals cannot sign up for the Public option. Rod, they already get health care. Federal Law prohibits Emergency Rooms from turning ANYONE away. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:23:19 We are talking about *HEALTH INSURANCE.* If a government run health insurance plan passes in an form, the government will be Constitutionally obligated to make it available to illegal aliens. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:26:05 See Aeros, you are so fucking stupid you can't even stay on subject. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:31:57 "So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law" From your version of events, this particular case only reached the 9th Circuit. Common law precedents formed in one circuit have no explicit precedence in other circuits, so no, this was not the law in New York or any of the states not under the jurisdiction of the 9th. In short, you're either full of shit or, again, you believe that all law experts should be familiar with every single judicial case that has ever taken place in all 50 states. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:45:54 It was heard on appeal and the appeals court upheld the lower court. California appealed to The United States Supreme Court who refuse to hear it. Now I don't know why they refused to hear it, but my guess would be they had already made a similar ruling when they said that illegals were entitled to Social Security. Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:49:05 HR is quite a mind reader. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:50:44 Especially when he declared that no one can show GWB lied because no one can read his mind. Now, HR is claiming he can read BHO's mind. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:52:43 "Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us." I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? I wouldn't blame him; most lawyers and legal experts focus on common law within their own spheres of influence. For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York, instead of somewhere like Alabama or, hell, even California. Opponents of health reform should be focusing on the negatives of the bill. They should not be obsessing over and trying to pick apart every little detail of a speech that in the end was little more than grandstanding. Hrothgar Member Thu Sep 10 22:57:30 There is a time and place to discuss disagreements over what the President has said. During the middle of his speech is not the place. That guy is not a hero. He's a loud mouth and showed a distinct lack of respect for his country's leader. For over 225 years our leaders have managed for the vast majority of the time keep debate and arguments civil. They have understood that the other political party is a fellow American opponent, not an enemy. It will be better off for us all if it stays that way. The outrageous extremists on the left and right need to be slapped down when they start getting out of hand and making thing uncivil. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:30:44 Rugian - I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. Rugian - For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York... LOL, why would someone whose job it is to teach Constitutional Law even consider teaching New York Common Law to their students. I swear you are just as stupid as roland. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:37:17 Ugh, this is headache inducing. Do you even know the most basic concepts of law? From the standpoint of common law interpretations of Constitutional law, you obviously look at USSC rulings first. But then you also look at how lower level courts interpret Constitutional law in the jurisdiction that you're likely to practice law in. This is important because depending on what circuit your area falls under, you can have vastly different common law precedents regarding Constitutional law interpretations in effect. Goddamn, I try to reasonably point something out to you and you make it impossible. You truly are a gifted troll Hot Rod. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:38:48 So basically, if a district or circuit court makes a precedent-establishing ruling on an aspect of Constitutional law in your area and it never reaches the Supreme Court, you need to know about that "local" ruling. Please don't argue against this, it is practically guaranteed to make you look stupid if you do. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:43:39 Taking the New York example, someone going to Columbia and planning to practice or teach Constitutional law in New York would spend a disproportionate amount of time looking at 2nd Circuit cases, in comparison to all other circuits. Get it now? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:49:45 Oh, and just to hammer the point home and to be explicit as possible, 2nd Circuit rulings on cases that related to the application of Constitutional law in a particular matter and that were not reviewed by the Supreme Court are examples of the "common law existing in New York" that are relevant to legal experts of Constitutional law. Good night Rod. When I get up in 7 hours I expect to see that you have accepted this and moved on. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:52:54 Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change. The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and inferior courts. The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one which courts can and do ignore occasionally. In other words, when the Supreme Court decided the case of allowing Social Security to illegal aliens, there was no need to hear further cases concerning benefits for illegals. "The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change." You cannot tell me that Obama is totally unaware of the Supreme Court decision concerning illegals and Social Security. Now, you go research it and if you can prove me wrong, I will certainly listen. Beyond that, I don't give a fuck what you think. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:01:20 The USSC made no decision concerning illegals. You seem to be woefully uneducated about how precedent is set. When the USSC refuses to hear a case, as it did in this instance, it is not saying "we affirm the decision of the lower court and establish binding precedent on all lower courts in the country." It is instead saying "we refuse to either affirm or overturn the decision of the lower court. The lower court's decision is binding precedent within its own jurisdiction but is not binding anywhere else." Please learn the basics of how common law works. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:03:20 In other words, your quote about stare decisis doesn't apply. "Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority)" That's where your example fails. By refusing to hear the case, no decision was made by the USSC. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:07:45 Does it burn you to know that someone a third of your age knows so much more about the system of law that has been used to govern you for the better part of a century than you do? Ninja Member Fri Sep 11 00:57:57 "It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. " Except that if he didn't even hear about it, it isn't a lie because he did not willfully know that it would be overturned (even if you weren't blowing smoke out your ass). How can you be so fucking old yet have no fucking clue about the basics of the court system? Are you senile or just a fucking retard? president bush Member Fri Sep 11 06:00:03 lol Hot Rod Member Fri Sep 11 06:46:23 As usual you fucking liberals don't have the brains to read what I posted so you can go fuck yourselves. I would rather argue with a fucking iron ball, it would be far more intelligent that a stupid assed liberal.
achhnji Member	Fri Sep 11 10:09:23 elcome to the Utopia Forums! The current time is Fri Sep 11 10:08:29 2009 , You have 0 new messages. Chat on the IRC server here Utopia Talk / Politics / Regarding The *HERO* That Shouted "lie" Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:23:22 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us? roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:08:33 "Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. " The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:10:31 That really pxss off the Americans who wanted mandatory sex change with the illegals. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 20:42:10 ttt Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:41:24 Hot Rod, I'm honestly curious. Do you think that a lawyer in a certain field knows about every single judicial decision in a state he doesn't practice in? Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:44:29 Why would he? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:47:49 Hell if I know, but you suggested that law experts should know every judicial decision in the history of all 50 states in your OP. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:58:55 No, I did not. Judge Napolitano has a research staff that helps him dig up that kind of stuff when he goes on TV to talk about it. It is his job to either know, or to find out the truth before he reports on it. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:02:26 I don't care what that fat fuck judge thinks. You said that OBAMA should have known about some judicial decision in the state of California. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:14:51 No, I said he should know that depriving illegals of benefits available to everyone else is unconstitutional because he taught Constitutional Law at Columbia University. If you want to go a step farther, the committee that wrote the particular version Obama referred to should have known because they probably have at least 50 law clerks on their staff to do that kind of research. So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law or you have a President who either doesn't know the subject he taught to college law students or he does not know the Bill he is talking about, assuming the committee is on the ball, or you have a President who stood up in front of a Joint Session of Congress and The American People and told a bald faced lie. You figure it out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 22:16:51 Its not lie, because the Law will say Illegals cannot sign up for the Public option. Rod, they already get health care. Federal Law prohibits Emergency Rooms from turning ANYONE away. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:23:19 We are talking about *HEALTH INSURANCE.* If a government run health insurance plan passes in an form, the government will be Constitutionally obligated to make it available to illegal aliens. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:26:05 See Aeros, you are so fucking stupid you can't even stay on subject. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:31:57 "So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law" From your version of events, this particular case only reached the 9th Circuit. Common law precedents formed in one circuit have no explicit precedence in other circuits, so no, this was not the law in New York or any of the states not under the jurisdiction of the 9th. In short, you're either full of shit or, again, you believe that all law experts should be familiar with every single judicial case that has ever taken place in all 50 states. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:45:54 It was heard on appeal and the appeals court upheld the lower court. California appealed to The United States Supreme Court who refuse to hear it. Now I don't know why they refused to hear it, but my guess would be they had already made a similar ruling when they said that illegals were entitled to Social Security. Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:49:05 HR is quite a mind reader. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:50:44 Especially when he declared that no one can show GWB lied because no one can read his mind. Now, HR is claiming he can read BHO's mind. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:52:43 "Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us." I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? I wouldn't blame him; most lawyers and legal experts focus on common law within their own spheres of influence. For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York, instead of somewhere like Alabama or, hell, even California. Opponents of health reform should be focusing on the negatives of the bill. They should not be obsessing over and trying to pick apart every little detail of a speech that in the end was little more than grandstanding. Hrothgar Member Thu Sep 10 22:57:30 There is a time and place to discuss disagreements over what the President has said. During the middle of his speech is not the place. That guy is not a hero. He's a loud mouth and showed a distinct lack of respect for his country's leader. For over 225 years our leaders have managed for the vast majority of the time keep debate and arguments civil. They have understood that the other political party is a fellow American opponent, not an enemy. It will be better off for us all if it stays that way. The outrageous extremists on the left and right need to be slapped down when they start getting out of hand and making thing uncivil. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:30:44 Rugian - I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. Rugian - For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York... LOL, why would someone whose job it is to teach Constitutional Law even consider teaching New York Common Law to their students. I swear you are just as stupid as roland. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:37:17 Ugh, this is headache inducing. Do you even know the most basic concepts of law? From the standpoint of common law interpretations of Constitutional law, you obviously look at USSC rulings first. But then you also look at how lower level courts interpret Constitutional law in the jurisdiction that you're likely to practice law in. This is important because depending on what circuit your area falls under, you can have vastly different common law precedents regarding Constitutional law interpretations in effect. Goddamn, I try to reasonably point something out to you and you make it impossible. You truly are a gifted troll Hot Rod. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:38:48 So basically, if a district or circuit court makes a precedent-establishing ruling on an aspect of Constitutional law in your area and it never reaches the Supreme Court, you need to know about that "local" ruling. Please don't argue against this, it is practically guaranteed to make you look stupid if you do. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:43:39 Taking the New York example, someone going to Columbia and planning to practice or teach Constitutional law in New York would spend a disproportionate amount of time looking at 2nd Circuit cases, in comparison to all other circuits. Get it now? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:49:45 Oh, and just to hammer the point home and to be explicit as possible, 2nd Circuit rulings on cases that related to the application of Constitutional law in a particular matter and that were not reviewed by the Supreme Court are examples of the "common law existing in New York" that are relevant to legal experts of Constitutional law. Good night Rod. When I get up in 7 hours I expect to see that you have accepted this and moved on. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:52:54 Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change. The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and inferior courts. The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one which courts can and do ignore occasionally. In other words, when the Supreme Court decided the case of allowing Social Security to illegal aliens, there was no need to hear further cases concerning benefits for illegals. "The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change." You cannot tell me that Obama is totally unaware of the Supreme Court decision concerning illegals and Social Security. Now, you go research it and if you can prove me wrong, I will certainly listen. Beyond that, I don't give a fuck what you think. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:01:20 The USSC made no decision concerning illegals. You seem to be woefully uneducated about how precedent is set. When the USSC refuses to hear a case, as it did in this instance, it is not saying "we affirm the decision of the lower court and establish binding precedent on all lower courts in the country." It is instead saying "we refuse to either affirm or overturn the decision of the lower court. The lower court's decision is binding precedent within its own jurisdiction but is not binding anywhere else." Please learn the basics of how common law works. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:03:20 In other words, your quote about stare decisis doesn't apply. "Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority)" That's where your example fails. By refusing to hear the case, no decision was made by the USSC. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:07:45 Does it burn you to know that someone a third of your age knows so much more about the system of law that has been used to govern you for the better part of a century than you do? Ninja Member Fri Sep 11 00:57:57 "It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. " Except that if he didn't even hear about it, it isn't a lie because he did not willfully know that it would be overturned (even if you weren't blowing smoke out your ass). How can you be so fucking old yet have no fucking clue about the basics of the court system? Are you senile or just a fucking retard? president bush Member Fri Sep 11 06:00:03 lol Hot Rod Member Fri Sep 11 06:46:23 As usual you fucking liberals don't have the brains to read what I posted so you can go fuck yourselves. I would rather argue with a fucking iron ball, it would be far more intelligent that a stupid assed liberal.
achhnji Member	Fri Sep 11 10:09:24 elcome to the Utopia Forums! The current time is Fri Sep 11 10:08:29 2009 , You have 0 new messages. Chat on the IRC server here Utopia Talk / Politics / Regarding The *HERO* That Shouted "lie" Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:23:22 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us? roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:08:33 "Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. " The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:10:31 That really pxss off the Americans who wanted mandatory sex change with the illegals. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 20:42:10 ttt Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:41:24 Hot Rod, I'm honestly curious. Do you think that a lawyer in a certain field knows about every single judicial decision in a state he doesn't practice in? Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:44:29 Why would he? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:47:49 Hell if I know, but you suggested that law experts should know every judicial decision in the history of all 50 states in your OP. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:58:55 No, I did not. Judge Napolitano has a research staff that helps him dig up that kind of stuff when he goes on TV to talk about it. It is his job to either know, or to find out the truth before he reports on it. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:02:26 I don't care what that fat fuck judge thinks. You said that OBAMA should have known about some judicial decision in the state of California. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:14:51 No, I said he should know that depriving illegals of benefits available to everyone else is unconstitutional because he taught Constitutional Law at Columbia University. If you want to go a step farther, the committee that wrote the particular version Obama referred to should have known because they probably have at least 50 law clerks on their staff to do that kind of research. So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law or you have a President who either doesn't know the subject he taught to college law students or he does not know the Bill he is talking about, assuming the committee is on the ball, or you have a President who stood up in front of a Joint Session of Congress and The American People and told a bald faced lie. You figure it out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 22:16:51 Its not lie, because the Law will say Illegals cannot sign up for the Public option. Rod, they already get health care. Federal Law prohibits Emergency Rooms from turning ANYONE away. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:23:19 We are talking about *HEALTH INSURANCE.* If a government run health insurance plan passes in an form, the government will be Constitutionally obligated to make it available to illegal aliens. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:26:05 See Aeros, you are so fucking stupid you can't even stay on subject. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:31:57 "So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law" From your version of events, this particular case only reached the 9th Circuit. Common law precedents formed in one circuit have no explicit precedence in other circuits, so no, this was not the law in New York or any of the states not under the jurisdiction of the 9th. In short, you're either full of shit or, again, you believe that all law experts should be familiar with every single judicial case that has ever taken place in all 50 states. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:45:54 It was heard on appeal and the appeals court upheld the lower court. California appealed to The United States Supreme Court who refuse to hear it. Now I don't know why they refused to hear it, but my guess would be they had already made a similar ruling when they said that illegals were entitled to Social Security. Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:49:05 HR is quite a mind reader. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:50:44 Especially when he declared that no one can show GWB lied because no one can read his mind. Now, HR is claiming he can read BHO's mind. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:52:43 "Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us." I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? I wouldn't blame him; most lawyers and legal experts focus on common law within their own spheres of influence. For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York, instead of somewhere like Alabama or, hell, even California. Opponents of health reform should be focusing on the negatives of the bill. They should not be obsessing over and trying to pick apart every little detail of a speech that in the end was little more than grandstanding. Hrothgar Member Thu Sep 10 22:57:30 There is a time and place to discuss disagreements over what the President has said. During the middle of his speech is not the place. That guy is not a hero. He's a loud mouth and showed a distinct lack of respect for his country's leader. For over 225 years our leaders have managed for the vast majority of the time keep debate and arguments civil. They have understood that the other political party is a fellow American opponent, not an enemy. It will be better off for us all if it stays that way. The outrageous extremists on the left and right need to be slapped down when they start getting out of hand and making thing uncivil. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:30:44 Rugian - I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. Rugian - For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York... LOL, why would someone whose job it is to teach Constitutional Law even consider teaching New York Common Law to their students. I swear you are just as stupid as roland. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:37:17 Ugh, this is headache inducing. Do you even know the most basic concepts of law? From the standpoint of common law interpretations of Constitutional law, you obviously look at USSC rulings first. But then you also look at how lower level courts interpret Constitutional law in the jurisdiction that you're likely to practice law in. This is important because depending on what circuit your area falls under, you can have vastly different common law precedents regarding Constitutional law interpretations in effect. Goddamn, I try to reasonably point something out to you and you make it impossible. You truly are a gifted troll Hot Rod. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:38:48 So basically, if a district or circuit court makes a precedent-establishing ruling on an aspect of Constitutional law in your area and it never reaches the Supreme Court, you need to know about that "local" ruling. Please don't argue against this, it is practically guaranteed to make you look stupid if you do. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:43:39 Taking the New York example, someone going to Columbia and planning to practice or teach Constitutional law in New York would spend a disproportionate amount of time looking at 2nd Circuit cases, in comparison to all other circuits. Get it now? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:49:45 Oh, and just to hammer the point home and to be explicit as possible, 2nd Circuit rulings on cases that related to the application of Constitutional law in a particular matter and that were not reviewed by the Supreme Court are examples of the "common law existing in New York" that are relevant to legal experts of Constitutional law. Good night Rod. When I get up in 7 hours I expect to see that you have accepted this and moved on. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:52:54 Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change. The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and inferior courts. The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one which courts can and do ignore occasionally. In other words, when the Supreme Court decided the case of allowing Social Security to illegal aliens, there was no need to hear further cases concerning benefits for illegals. "The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change." You cannot tell me that Obama is totally unaware of the Supreme Court decision concerning illegals and Social Security. Now, you go research it and if you can prove me wrong, I will certainly listen. Beyond that, I don't give a fuck what you think. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:01:20 The USSC made no decision concerning illegals. You seem to be woefully uneducated about how precedent is set. When the USSC refuses to hear a case, as it did in this instance, it is not saying "we affirm the decision of the lower court and establish binding precedent on all lower courts in the country." It is instead saying "we refuse to either affirm or overturn the decision of the lower court. The lower court's decision is binding precedent within its own jurisdiction but is not binding anywhere else." Please learn the basics of how common law works. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:03:20 In other words, your quote about stare decisis doesn't apply. "Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority)" That's where your example fails. By refusing to hear the case, no decision was made by the USSC. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:07:45 Does it burn you to know that someone a third of your age knows so much more about the system of law that has been used to govern you for the better part of a century than you do? Ninja Member Fri Sep 11 00:57:57 "It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. " Except that if he didn't even hear about it, it isn't a lie because he did not willfully know that it would be overturned (even if you weren't blowing smoke out your ass). How can you be so fucking old yet have no fucking clue about the basics of the court system? Are you senile or just a fucking retard? president bush Member Fri Sep 11 06:00:03 lol Hot Rod Member Fri Sep 11 06:46:23 As usual you fucking liberals don't have the brains to read what I posted so you can go fuck yourselves. I would rather argue with a fucking iron ball, it would be far more intelligent that a stupid assed liberal.
achhnji Member	Fri Sep 11 10:09:24 elcome to the Utopia Forums! The current time is Fri Sep 11 10:08:29 2009 , You have 0 new messages. Chat on the IRC server here Utopia Talk / Politics / Regarding The *HERO* That Shouted "lie" Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:23:22 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us? roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:08:33 "Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. " The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:10:31 That really pxss off the Americans who wanted mandatory sex change with the illegals. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 20:42:10 ttt Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:41:24 Hot Rod, I'm honestly curious. Do you think that a lawyer in a certain field knows about every single judicial decision in a state he doesn't practice in? Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:44:29 Why would he? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:47:49 Hell if I know, but you suggested that law experts should know every judicial decision in the history of all 50 states in your OP. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:58:55 No, I did not. Judge Napolitano has a research staff that helps him dig up that kind of stuff when he goes on TV to talk about it. It is his job to either know, or to find out the truth before he reports on it. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:02:26 I don't care what that fat fuck judge thinks. You said that OBAMA should have known about some judicial decision in the state of California. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:14:51 No, I said he should know that depriving illegals of benefits available to everyone else is unconstitutional because he taught Constitutional Law at Columbia University. If you want to go a step farther, the committee that wrote the particular version Obama referred to should have known because they probably have at least 50 law clerks on their staff to do that kind of research. So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law or you have a President who either doesn't know the subject he taught to college law students or he does not know the Bill he is talking about, assuming the committee is on the ball, or you have a President who stood up in front of a Joint Session of Congress and The American People and told a bald faced lie. You figure it out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 22:16:51 Its not lie, because the Law will say Illegals cannot sign up for the Public option. Rod, they already get health care. Federal Law prohibits Emergency Rooms from turning ANYONE away. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:23:19 We are talking about *HEALTH INSURANCE.* If a government run health insurance plan passes in an form, the government will be Constitutionally obligated to make it available to illegal aliens. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:26:05 See Aeros, you are so fucking stupid you can't even stay on subject. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:31:57 "So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law" From your version of events, this particular case only reached the 9th Circuit. Common law precedents formed in one circuit have no explicit precedence in other circuits, so no, this was not the law in New York or any of the states not under the jurisdiction of the 9th. In short, you're either full of shit or, again, you believe that all law experts should be familiar with every single judicial case that has ever taken place in all 50 states. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:45:54 It was heard on appeal and the appeals court upheld the lower court. California appealed to The United States Supreme Court who refuse to hear it. Now I don't know why they refused to hear it, but my guess would be they had already made a similar ruling when they said that illegals were entitled to Social Security. Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:49:05 HR is quite a mind reader. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:50:44 Especially when he declared that no one can show GWB lied because no one can read his mind. Now, HR is claiming he can read BHO's mind. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:52:43 "Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us." I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? I wouldn't blame him; most lawyers and legal experts focus on common law within their own spheres of influence. For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York, instead of somewhere like Alabama or, hell, even California. Opponents of health reform should be focusing on the negatives of the bill. They should not be obsessing over and trying to pick apart every little detail of a speech that in the end was little more than grandstanding. Hrothgar Member Thu Sep 10 22:57:30 There is a time and place to discuss disagreements over what the President has said. During the middle of his speech is not the place. That guy is not a hero. He's a loud mouth and showed a distinct lack of respect for his country's leader. For over 225 years our leaders have managed for the vast majority of the time keep debate and arguments civil. They have understood that the other political party is a fellow American opponent, not an enemy. It will be better off for us all if it stays that way. The outrageous extremists on the left and right need to be slapped down when they start getting out of hand and making thing uncivil. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:30:44 Rugian - I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. Rugian - For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York... LOL, why would someone whose job it is to teach Constitutional Law even consider teaching New York Common Law to their students. I swear you are just as stupid as roland. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:37:17 Ugh, this is headache inducing. Do you even know the most basic concepts of law? From the standpoint of common law interpretations of Constitutional law, you obviously look at USSC rulings first. But then you also look at how lower level courts interpret Constitutional law in the jurisdiction that you're likely to practice law in. This is important because depending on what circuit your area falls under, you can have vastly different common law precedents regarding Constitutional law interpretations in effect. Goddamn, I try to reasonably point something out to you and you make it impossible. You truly are a gifted troll Hot Rod. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:38:48 So basically, if a district or circuit court makes a precedent-establishing ruling on an aspect of Constitutional law in your area and it never reaches the Supreme Court, you need to know about that "local" ruling. Please don't argue against this, it is practically guaranteed to make you look stupid if you do. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:43:39 Taking the New York example, someone going to Columbia and planning to practice or teach Constitutional law in New York would spend a disproportionate amount of time looking at 2nd Circuit cases, in comparison to all other circuits. Get it now? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:49:45 Oh, and just to hammer the point home and to be explicit as possible, 2nd Circuit rulings on cases that related to the application of Constitutional law in a particular matter and that were not reviewed by the Supreme Court are examples of the "common law existing in New York" that are relevant to legal experts of Constitutional law. Good night Rod. When I get up in 7 hours I expect to see that you have accepted this and moved on. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:52:54 Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change. The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and inferior courts. The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one which courts can and do ignore occasionally. In other words, when the Supreme Court decided the case of allowing Social Security to illegal aliens, there was no need to hear further cases concerning benefits for illegals. "The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change." You cannot tell me that Obama is totally unaware of the Supreme Court decision concerning illegals and Social Security. Now, you go research it and if you can prove me wrong, I will certainly listen. Beyond that, I don't give a fuck what you think. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:01:20 The USSC made no decision concerning illegals. You seem to be woefully uneducated about how precedent is set. When the USSC refuses to hear a case, as it did in this instance, it is not saying "we affirm the decision of the lower court and establish binding precedent on all lower courts in the country." It is instead saying "we refuse to either affirm or overturn the decision of the lower court. The lower court's decision is binding precedent within its own jurisdiction but is not binding anywhere else." Please learn the basics of how common law works. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:03:20 In other words, your quote about stare decisis doesn't apply. "Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority)" That's where your example fails. By refusing to hear the case, no decision was made by the USSC. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:07:45 Does it burn you to know that someone a third of your age knows so much more about the system of law that has been used to govern you for the better part of a century than you do? Ninja Member Fri Sep 11 00:57:57 "It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. " Except that if he didn't even hear about it, it isn't a lie because he did not willfully know that it would be overturned (even if you weren't blowing smoke out your ass). How can you be so fucking old yet have no fucking clue about the basics of the court system? Are you senile or just a fucking retard? president bush Member Fri Sep 11 06:00:03 lol Hot Rod Member Fri Sep 11 06:46:23 As usual you fucking liberals don't have the brains to read what I posted so you can go fuck yourselves. I would rather argue with a fucking iron ball, it would be far more intelligent that a stupid assed liberal.
achhnji Member	Fri Sep 11 10:09:25 elcome to the Utopia Forums! The current time is Fri Sep 11 10:08:29 2009 , You have 0 new messages. Chat on the IRC server here Utopia Talk / Politics / Regarding The *HERO* That Shouted "lie" Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:23:22 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us? roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:08:33 "Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. " The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:10:31 That really pxss off the Americans who wanted mandatory sex change with the illegals. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 20:42:10 ttt Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:41:24 Hot Rod, I'm honestly curious. Do you think that a lawyer in a certain field knows about every single judicial decision in a state he doesn't practice in? Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:44:29 Why would he? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:47:49 Hell if I know, but you suggested that law experts should know every judicial decision in the history of all 50 states in your OP. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:58:55 No, I did not. Judge Napolitano has a research staff that helps him dig up that kind of stuff when he goes on TV to talk about it. It is his job to either know, or to find out the truth before he reports on it. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:02:26 I don't care what that fat fuck judge thinks. You said that OBAMA should have known about some judicial decision in the state of California. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:14:51 No, I said he should know that depriving illegals of benefits available to everyone else is unconstitutional because he taught Constitutional Law at Columbia University. If you want to go a step farther, the committee that wrote the particular version Obama referred to should have known because they probably have at least 50 law clerks on their staff to do that kind of research. So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law or you have a President who either doesn't know the subject he taught to college law students or he does not know the Bill he is talking about, assuming the committee is on the ball, or you have a President who stood up in front of a Joint Session of Congress and The American People and told a bald faced lie. You figure it out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 22:16:51 Its not lie, because the Law will say Illegals cannot sign up for the Public option. Rod, they already get health care. Federal Law prohibits Emergency Rooms from turning ANYONE away. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:23:19 We are talking about *HEALTH INSURANCE.* If a government run health insurance plan passes in an form, the government will be Constitutionally obligated to make it available to illegal aliens. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:26:05 See Aeros, you are so fucking stupid you can't even stay on subject. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:31:57 "So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law" From your version of events, this particular case only reached the 9th Circuit. Common law precedents formed in one circuit have no explicit precedence in other circuits, so no, this was not the law in New York or any of the states not under the jurisdiction of the 9th. In short, you're either full of shit or, again, you believe that all law experts should be familiar with every single judicial case that has ever taken place in all 50 states. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:45:54 It was heard on appeal and the appeals court upheld the lower court. California appealed to The United States Supreme Court who refuse to hear it. Now I don't know why they refused to hear it, but my guess would be they had already made a similar ruling when they said that illegals were entitled to Social Security. Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:49:05 HR is quite a mind reader. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:50:44 Especially when he declared that no one can show GWB lied because no one can read his mind. Now, HR is claiming he can read BHO's mind. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:52:43 "Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us." I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? I wouldn't blame him; most lawyers and legal experts focus on common law within their own spheres of influence. For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York, instead of somewhere like Alabama or, hell, even California. Opponents of health reform should be focusing on the negatives of the bill. They should not be obsessing over and trying to pick apart every little detail of a speech that in the end was little more than grandstanding. Hrothgar Member Thu Sep 10 22:57:30 There is a time and place to discuss disagreements over what the President has said. During the middle of his speech is not the place. That guy is not a hero. He's a loud mouth and showed a distinct lack of respect for his country's leader. For over 225 years our leaders have managed for the vast majority of the time keep debate and arguments civil. They have understood that the other political party is a fellow American opponent, not an enemy. It will be better off for us all if it stays that way. The outrageous extremists on the left and right need to be slapped down when they start getting out of hand and making thing uncivil. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:30:44 Rugian - I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. Rugian - For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York... LOL, why would someone whose job it is to teach Constitutional Law even consider teaching New York Common Law to their students. I swear you are just as stupid as roland. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:37:17 Ugh, this is headache inducing. Do you even know the most basic concepts of law? From the standpoint of common law interpretations of Constitutional law, you obviously look at USSC rulings first. But then you also look at how lower level courts interpret Constitutional law in the jurisdiction that you're likely to practice law in. This is important because depending on what circuit your area falls under, you can have vastly different common law precedents regarding Constitutional law interpretations in effect. Goddamn, I try to reasonably point something out to you and you make it impossible. You truly are a gifted troll Hot Rod. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:38:48 So basically, if a district or circuit court makes a precedent-establishing ruling on an aspect of Constitutional law in your area and it never reaches the Supreme Court, you need to know about that "local" ruling. Please don't argue against this, it is practically guaranteed to make you look stupid if you do. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:43:39 Taking the New York example, someone going to Columbia and planning to practice or teach Constitutional law in New York would spend a disproportionate amount of time looking at 2nd Circuit cases, in comparison to all other circuits. Get it now? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:49:45 Oh, and just to hammer the point home and to be explicit as possible, 2nd Circuit rulings on cases that related to the application of Constitutional law in a particular matter and that were not reviewed by the Supreme Court are examples of the "common law existing in New York" that are relevant to legal experts of Constitutional law. Good night Rod. When I get up in 7 hours I expect to see that you have accepted this and moved on. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:52:54 Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change. The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and inferior courts. The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one which courts can and do ignore occasionally. In other words, when the Supreme Court decided the case of allowing Social Security to illegal aliens, there was no need to hear further cases concerning benefits for illegals. "The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change." You cannot tell me that Obama is totally unaware of the Supreme Court decision concerning illegals and Social Security. Now, you go research it and if you can prove me wrong, I will certainly listen. Beyond that, I don't give a fuck what you think. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:01:20 The USSC made no decision concerning illegals. You seem to be woefully uneducated about how precedent is set. When the USSC refuses to hear a case, as it did in this instance, it is not saying "we affirm the decision of the lower court and establish binding precedent on all lower courts in the country." It is instead saying "we refuse to either affirm or overturn the decision of the lower court. The lower court's decision is binding precedent within its own jurisdiction but is not binding anywhere else." Please learn the basics of how common law works. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:03:20 In other words, your quote about stare decisis doesn't apply. "Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority)" That's where your example fails. By refusing to hear the case, no decision was made by the USSC. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:07:45 Does it burn you to know that someone a third of your age knows so much more about the system of law that has been used to govern you for the better part of a century than you do? Ninja Member Fri Sep 11 00:57:57 "It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. " Except that if he didn't even hear about it, it isn't a lie because he did not willfully know that it would be overturned (even if you weren't blowing smoke out your ass). How can you be so fucking old yet have no fucking clue about the basics of the court system? Are you senile or just a fucking retard? president bush Member Fri Sep 11 06:00:03 lol Hot Rod Member Fri Sep 11 06:46:23 As usual you fucking liberals don't have the brains to read what I posted so you can go fuck yourselves. I would rather argue with a fucking iron ball, it would be far more intelligent that a stupid assed liberal.
achhnji Member	Fri Sep 11 10:09:25 elcome to the Utopia Forums! The current time is Fri Sep 11 10:08:29 2009 , You have 0 new messages. Chat on the IRC server here Utopia Talk / Politics / Regarding The *HERO* That Shouted "lie" Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:23:22 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us? roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:08:33 "Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. " The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:10:31 That really pxss off the Americans who wanted mandatory sex change with the illegals. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 20:42:10 ttt Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:41:24 Hot Rod, I'm honestly curious. Do you think that a lawyer in a certain field knows about every single judicial decision in a state he doesn't practice in? Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:44:29 Why would he? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:47:49 Hell if I know, but you suggested that law experts should know every judicial decision in the history of all 50 states in your OP. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:58:55 No, I did not. Judge Napolitano has a research staff that helps him dig up that kind of stuff when he goes on TV to talk about it. It is his job to either know, or to find out the truth before he reports on it. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:02:26 I don't care what that fat fuck judge thinks. You said that OBAMA should have known about some judicial decision in the state of California. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:14:51 No, I said he should know that depriving illegals of benefits available to everyone else is unconstitutional because he taught Constitutional Law at Columbia University. If you want to go a step farther, the committee that wrote the particular version Obama referred to should have known because they probably have at least 50 law clerks on their staff to do that kind of research. So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law or you have a President who either doesn't know the subject he taught to college law students or he does not know the Bill he is talking about, assuming the committee is on the ball, or you have a President who stood up in front of a Joint Session of Congress and The American People and told a bald faced lie. You figure it out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 22:16:51 Its not lie, because the Law will say Illegals cannot sign up for the Public option. Rod, they already get health care. Federal Law prohibits Emergency Rooms from turning ANYONE away. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:23:19 We are talking about *HEALTH INSURANCE.* If a government run health insurance plan passes in an form, the government will be Constitutionally obligated to make it available to illegal aliens. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:26:05 See Aeros, you are so fucking stupid you can't even stay on subject. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:31:57 "So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law" From your version of events, this particular case only reached the 9th Circuit. Common law precedents formed in one circuit have no explicit precedence in other circuits, so no, this was not the law in New York or any of the states not under the jurisdiction of the 9th. In short, you're either full of shit or, again, you believe that all law experts should be familiar with every single judicial case that has ever taken place in all 50 states. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:45:54 It was heard on appeal and the appeals court upheld the lower court. California appealed to The United States Supreme Court who refuse to hear it. Now I don't know why they refused to hear it, but my guess would be they had already made a similar ruling when they said that illegals were entitled to Social Security. Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:49:05 HR is quite a mind reader. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:50:44 Especially when he declared that no one can show GWB lied because no one can read his mind. Now, HR is claiming he can read BHO's mind. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:52:43 "Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us." I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? I wouldn't blame him; most lawyers and legal experts focus on common law within their own spheres of influence. For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York, instead of somewhere like Alabama or, hell, even California. Opponents of health reform should be focusing on the negatives of the bill. They should not be obsessing over and trying to pick apart every little detail of a speech that in the end was little more than grandstanding. Hrothgar Member Thu Sep 10 22:57:30 There is a time and place to discuss disagreements over what the President has said. During the middle of his speech is not the place. That guy is not a hero. He's a loud mouth and showed a distinct lack of respect for his country's leader. For over 225 years our leaders have managed for the vast majority of the time keep debate and arguments civil. They have understood that the other political party is a fellow American opponent, not an enemy. It will be better off for us all if it stays that way. The outrageous extremists on the left and right need to be slapped down when they start getting out of hand and making thing uncivil. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:30:44 Rugian - I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. Rugian - For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York... LOL, why would someone whose job it is to teach Constitutional Law even consider teaching New York Common Law to their students. I swear you are just as stupid as roland. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:37:17 Ugh, this is headache inducing. Do you even know the most basic concepts of law? From the standpoint of common law interpretations of Constitutional law, you obviously look at USSC rulings first. But then you also look at how lower level courts interpret Constitutional law in the jurisdiction that you're likely to practice law in. This is important because depending on what circuit your area falls under, you can have vastly different common law precedents regarding Constitutional law interpretations in effect. Goddamn, I try to reasonably point something out to you and you make it impossible. You truly are a gifted troll Hot Rod. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:38:48 So basically, if a district or circuit court makes a precedent-establishing ruling on an aspect of Constitutional law in your area and it never reaches the Supreme Court, you need to know about that "local" ruling. Please don't argue against this, it is practically guaranteed to make you look stupid if you do. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:43:39 Taking the New York example, someone going to Columbia and planning to practice or teach Constitutional law in New York would spend a disproportionate amount of time looking at 2nd Circuit cases, in comparison to all other circuits. Get it now? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:49:45 Oh, and just to hammer the point home and to be explicit as possible, 2nd Circuit rulings on cases that related to the application of Constitutional law in a particular matter and that were not reviewed by the Supreme Court are examples of the "common law existing in New York" that are relevant to legal experts of Constitutional law. Good night Rod. When I get up in 7 hours I expect to see that you have accepted this and moved on. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:52:54 Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change. The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and inferior courts. The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one which courts can and do ignore occasionally. In other words, when the Supreme Court decided the case of allowing Social Security to illegal aliens, there was no need to hear further cases concerning benefits for illegals. "The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change." You cannot tell me that Obama is totally unaware of the Supreme Court decision concerning illegals and Social Security. Now, you go research it and if you can prove me wrong, I will certainly listen. Beyond that, I don't give a fuck what you think. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:01:20 The USSC made no decision concerning illegals. You seem to be woefully uneducated about how precedent is set. When the USSC refuses to hear a case, as it did in this instance, it is not saying "we affirm the decision of the lower court and establish binding precedent on all lower courts in the country." It is instead saying "we refuse to either affirm or overturn the decision of the lower court. The lower court's decision is binding precedent within its own jurisdiction but is not binding anywhere else." Please learn the basics of how common law works. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:03:20 In other words, your quote about stare decisis doesn't apply. "Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority)" That's where your example fails. By refusing to hear the case, no decision was made by the USSC. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:07:45 Does it burn you to know that someone a third of your age knows so much more about the system of law that has been used to govern you for the better part of a century than you do? Ninja Member Fri Sep 11 00:57:57 "It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. " Except that if he didn't even hear about it, it isn't a lie because he did not willfully know that it would be overturned (even if you weren't blowing smoke out your ass). How can you be so fucking old yet have no fucking clue about the basics of the court system? Are you senile or just a fucking retard? president bush Member Fri Sep 11 06:00:03 lol Hot Rod Member Fri Sep 11 06:46:23 As usual you fucking liberals don't have the brains to read what I posted so you can go fuck yourselves. I would rather argue with a fucking iron ball, it would be far more intelligent that a stupid assed liberal.
achhnji Member	Fri Sep 11 10:09:25 elcome to the Utopia Forums! The current time is Fri Sep 11 10:08:29 2009 , You have 0 new messages. Chat on the IRC server here Utopia Talk / Politics / Regarding The *HERO* That Shouted "lie" Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:23:22 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us? roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:08:33 "Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. " The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:10:31 That really pxss off the Americans who wanted mandatory sex change with the illegals. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 20:42:10 ttt Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:41:24 Hot Rod, I'm honestly curious. Do you think that a lawyer in a certain field knows about every single judicial decision in a state he doesn't practice in? Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:44:29 Why would he? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:47:49 Hell if I know, but you suggested that law experts should know every judicial decision in the history of all 50 states in your OP. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:58:55 No, I did not. Judge Napolitano has a research staff that helps him dig up that kind of stuff when he goes on TV to talk about it. It is his job to either know, or to find out the truth before he reports on it. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:02:26 I don't care what that fat fuck judge thinks. You said that OBAMA should have known about some judicial decision in the state of California. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:14:51 No, I said he should know that depriving illegals of benefits available to everyone else is unconstitutional because he taught Constitutional Law at Columbia University. If you want to go a step farther, the committee that wrote the particular version Obama referred to should have known because they probably have at least 50 law clerks on their staff to do that kind of research. So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law or you have a President who either doesn't know the subject he taught to college law students or he does not know the Bill he is talking about, assuming the committee is on the ball, or you have a President who stood up in front of a Joint Session of Congress and The American People and told a bald faced lie. You figure it out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 22:16:51 Its not lie, because the Law will say Illegals cannot sign up for the Public option. Rod, they already get health care. Federal Law prohibits Emergency Rooms from turning ANYONE away. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:23:19 We are talking about *HEALTH INSURANCE.* If a government run health insurance plan passes in an form, the government will be Constitutionally obligated to make it available to illegal aliens. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:26:05 See Aeros, you are so fucking stupid you can't even stay on subject. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:31:57 "So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law" From your version of events, this particular case only reached the 9th Circuit. Common law precedents formed in one circuit have no explicit precedence in other circuits, so no, this was not the law in New York or any of the states not under the jurisdiction of the 9th. In short, you're either full of shit or, again, you believe that all law experts should be familiar with every single judicial case that has ever taken place in all 50 states. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:45:54 It was heard on appeal and the appeals court upheld the lower court. California appealed to The United States Supreme Court who refuse to hear it. Now I don't know why they refused to hear it, but my guess would be they had already made a similar ruling when they said that illegals were entitled to Social Security. Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:49:05 HR is quite a mind reader. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:50:44 Especially when he declared that no one can show GWB lied because no one can read his mind. Now, HR is claiming he can read BHO's mind. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:52:43 "Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us." I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? I wouldn't blame him; most lawyers and legal experts focus on common law within their own spheres of influence. For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York, instead of somewhere like Alabama or, hell, even California. Opponents of health reform should be focusing on the negatives of the bill. They should not be obsessing over and trying to pick apart every little detail of a speech that in the end was little more than grandstanding. Hrothgar Member Thu Sep 10 22:57:30 There is a time and place to discuss disagreements over what the President has said. During the middle of his speech is not the place. That guy is not a hero. He's a loud mouth and showed a distinct lack of respect for his country's leader. For over 225 years our leaders have managed for the vast majority of the time keep debate and arguments civil. They have understood that the other political party is a fellow American opponent, not an enemy. It will be better off for us all if it stays that way. The outrageous extremists on the left and right need to be slapped down when they start getting out of hand and making thing uncivil. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:30:44 Rugian - I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. Rugian - For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York... LOL, why would someone whose job it is to teach Constitutional Law even consider teaching New York Common Law to their students. I swear you are just as stupid as roland. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:37:17 Ugh, this is headache inducing. Do you even know the most basic concepts of law? From the standpoint of common law interpretations of Constitutional law, you obviously look at USSC rulings first. But then you also look at how lower level courts interpret Constitutional law in the jurisdiction that you're likely to practice law in. This is important because depending on what circuit your area falls under, you can have vastly different common law precedents regarding Constitutional law interpretations in effect. Goddamn, I try to reasonably point something out to you and you make it impossible. You truly are a gifted troll Hot Rod. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:38:48 So basically, if a district or circuit court makes a precedent-establishing ruling on an aspect of Constitutional law in your area and it never reaches the Supreme Court, you need to know about that "local" ruling. Please don't argue against this, it is practically guaranteed to make you look stupid if you do. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:43:39 Taking the New York example, someone going to Columbia and planning to practice or teach Constitutional law in New York would spend a disproportionate amount of time looking at 2nd Circuit cases, in comparison to all other circuits. Get it now? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:49:45 Oh, and just to hammer the point home and to be explicit as possible, 2nd Circuit rulings on cases that related to the application of Constitutional law in a particular matter and that were not reviewed by the Supreme Court are examples of the "common law existing in New York" that are relevant to legal experts of Constitutional law. Good night Rod. When I get up in 7 hours I expect to see that you have accepted this and moved on. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:52:54 Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change. The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and inferior courts. The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one which courts can and do ignore occasionally. In other words, when the Supreme Court decided the case of allowing Social Security to illegal aliens, there was no need to hear further cases concerning benefits for illegals. "The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change." You cannot tell me that Obama is totally unaware of the Supreme Court decision concerning illegals and Social Security. Now, you go research it and if you can prove me wrong, I will certainly listen. Beyond that, I don't give a fuck what you think. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:01:20 The USSC made no decision concerning illegals. You seem to be woefully uneducated about how precedent is set. When the USSC refuses to hear a case, as it did in this instance, it is not saying "we affirm the decision of the lower court and establish binding precedent on all lower courts in the country." It is instead saying "we refuse to either affirm or overturn the decision of the lower court. The lower court's decision is binding precedent within its own jurisdiction but is not binding anywhere else." Please learn the basics of how common law works. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:03:20 In other words, your quote about stare decisis doesn't apply. "Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority)" That's where your example fails. By refusing to hear the case, no decision was made by the USSC. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:07:45 Does it burn you to know that someone a third of your age knows so much more about the system of law that has been used to govern you for the better part of a century than you do? Ninja Member Fri Sep 11 00:57:57 "It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. " Except that if he didn't even hear about it, it isn't a lie because he did not willfully know that it would be overturned (even if you weren't blowing smoke out your ass). How can you be so fucking old yet have no fucking clue about the basics of the court system? Are you senile or just a fucking retard? president bush Member Fri Sep 11 06:00:03 lol Hot Rod Member Fri Sep 11 06:46:23 As usual you fucking liberals don't have the brains to read what I posted so you can go fuck yourselves. I would rather argue with a fucking iron ball, it would be far more intelligent that a stupid assed liberal.
achhnji Member	Fri Sep 11 10:09:26 elcome to the Utopia Forums! The current time is Fri Sep 11 10:08:29 2009 , You have 0 new messages. Chat on the IRC server here Utopia Talk / Politics / Regarding The *HERO* That Shouted "lie" Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:23:22 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us? roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:08:33 "Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. " The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:10:31 That really pxss off the Americans who wanted mandatory sex change with the illegals. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 20:42:10 ttt Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:41:24 Hot Rod, I'm honestly curious. Do you think that a lawyer in a certain field knows about every single judicial decision in a state he doesn't practice in? Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:44:29 Why would he? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:47:49 Hell if I know, but you suggested that law experts should know every judicial decision in the history of all 50 states in your OP. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:58:55 No, I did not. Judge Napolitano has a research staff that helps him dig up that kind of stuff when he goes on TV to talk about it. It is his job to either know, or to find out the truth before he reports on it. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:02:26 I don't care what that fat fuck judge thinks. You said that OBAMA should have known about some judicial decision in the state of California. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:14:51 No, I said he should know that depriving illegals of benefits available to everyone else is unconstitutional because he taught Constitutional Law at Columbia University. If you want to go a step farther, the committee that wrote the particular version Obama referred to should have known because they probably have at least 50 law clerks on their staff to do that kind of research. So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law or you have a President who either doesn't know the subject he taught to college law students or he does not know the Bill he is talking about, assuming the committee is on the ball, or you have a President who stood up in front of a Joint Session of Congress and The American People and told a bald faced lie. You figure it out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 22:16:51 Its not lie, because the Law will say Illegals cannot sign up for the Public option. Rod, they already get health care. Federal Law prohibits Emergency Rooms from turning ANYONE away. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:23:19 We are talking about *HEALTH INSURANCE.* If a government run health insurance plan passes in an form, the government will be Constitutionally obligated to make it available to illegal aliens. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:26:05 See Aeros, you are so fucking stupid you can't even stay on subject. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:31:57 "So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law" From your version of events, this particular case only reached the 9th Circuit. Common law precedents formed in one circuit have no explicit precedence in other circuits, so no, this was not the law in New York or any of the states not under the jurisdiction of the 9th. In short, you're either full of shit or, again, you believe that all law experts should be familiar with every single judicial case that has ever taken place in all 50 states. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:45:54 It was heard on appeal and the appeals court upheld the lower court. California appealed to The United States Supreme Court who refuse to hear it. Now I don't know why they refused to hear it, but my guess would be they had already made a similar ruling when they said that illegals were entitled to Social Security. Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:49:05 HR is quite a mind reader. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:50:44 Especially when he declared that no one can show GWB lied because no one can read his mind. Now, HR is claiming he can read BHO's mind. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:52:43 "Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us." I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? I wouldn't blame him; most lawyers and legal experts focus on common law within their own spheres of influence. For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York, instead of somewhere like Alabama or, hell, even California. Opponents of health reform should be focusing on the negatives of the bill. They should not be obsessing over and trying to pick apart every little detail of a speech that in the end was little more than grandstanding. Hrothgar Member Thu Sep 10 22:57:30 There is a time and place to discuss disagreements over what the President has said. During the middle of his speech is not the place. That guy is not a hero. He's a loud mouth and showed a distinct lack of respect for his country's leader. For over 225 years our leaders have managed for the vast majority of the time keep debate and arguments civil. They have understood that the other political party is a fellow American opponent, not an enemy. It will be better off for us all if it stays that way. The outrageous extremists on the left and right need to be slapped down when they start getting out of hand and making thing uncivil. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:30:44 Rugian - I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. Rugian - For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York... LOL, why would someone whose job it is to teach Constitutional Law even consider teaching New York Common Law to their students. I swear you are just as stupid as roland. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:37:17 Ugh, this is headache inducing. Do you even know the most basic concepts of law? From the standpoint of common law interpretations of Constitutional law, you obviously look at USSC rulings first. But then you also look at how lower level courts interpret Constitutional law in the jurisdiction that you're likely to practice law in. This is important because depending on what circuit your area falls under, you can have vastly different common law precedents regarding Constitutional law interpretations in effect. Goddamn, I try to reasonably point something out to you and you make it impossible. You truly are a gifted troll Hot Rod. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:38:48 So basically, if a district or circuit court makes a precedent-establishing ruling on an aspect of Constitutional law in your area and it never reaches the Supreme Court, you need to know about that "local" ruling. Please don't argue against this, it is practically guaranteed to make you look stupid if you do. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:43:39 Taking the New York example, someone going to Columbia and planning to practice or teach Constitutional law in New York would spend a disproportionate amount of time looking at 2nd Circuit cases, in comparison to all other circuits. Get it now? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:49:45 Oh, and just to hammer the point home and to be explicit as possible, 2nd Circuit rulings on cases that related to the application of Constitutional law in a particular matter and that were not reviewed by the Supreme Court are examples of the "common law existing in New York" that are relevant to legal experts of Constitutional law. Good night Rod. When I get up in 7 hours I expect to see that you have accepted this and moved on. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:52:54 Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change. The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and inferior courts. The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one which courts can and do ignore occasionally. In other words, when the Supreme Court decided the case of allowing Social Security to illegal aliens, there was no need to hear further cases concerning benefits for illegals. "The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change." You cannot tell me that Obama is totally unaware of the Supreme Court decision concerning illegals and Social Security. Now, you go research it and if you can prove me wrong, I will certainly listen. Beyond that, I don't give a fuck what you think. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:01:20 The USSC made no decision concerning illegals. You seem to be woefully uneducated about how precedent is set. When the USSC refuses to hear a case, as it did in this instance, it is not saying "we affirm the decision of the lower court and establish binding precedent on all lower courts in the country." It is instead saying "we refuse to either affirm or overturn the decision of the lower court. The lower court's decision is binding precedent within its own jurisdiction but is not binding anywhere else." Please learn the basics of how common law works. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:03:20 In other words, your quote about stare decisis doesn't apply. "Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority)" That's where your example fails. By refusing to hear the case, no decision was made by the USSC. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:07:45 Does it burn you to know that someone a third of your age knows so much more about the system of law that has been used to govern you for the better part of a century than you do? Ninja Member Fri Sep 11 00:57:57 "It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. " Except that if he didn't even hear about it, it isn't a lie because he did not willfully know that it would be overturned (even if you weren't blowing smoke out your ass). How can you be so fucking old yet have no fucking clue about the basics of the court system? Are you senile or just a fucking retard? president bush Member Fri Sep 11 06:00:03 lol Hot Rod Member Fri Sep 11 06:46:23 As usual you fucking liberals don't have the brains to read what I posted so you can go fuck yourselves. I would rather argue with a fucking iron ball, it would be far more intelligent that a stupid assed liberal.
achhnji Member	Fri Sep 11 10:09:26 elcome to the Utopia Forums! The current time is Fri Sep 11 10:08:29 2009 , You have 0 new messages. Chat on the IRC server here Utopia Talk / Politics / Regarding The *HERO* That Shouted "lie" Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:23:22 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us? roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:08:33 "Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. " The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:10:31 That really pxss off the Americans who wanted mandatory sex change with the illegals. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 20:42:10 ttt Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:41:24 Hot Rod, I'm honestly curious. Do you think that a lawyer in a certain field knows about every single judicial decision in a state he doesn't practice in? Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:44:29 Why would he? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:47:49 Hell if I know, but you suggested that law experts should know every judicial decision in the history of all 50 states in your OP. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:58:55 No, I did not. Judge Napolitano has a research staff that helps him dig up that kind of stuff when he goes on TV to talk about it. It is his job to either know, or to find out the truth before he reports on it. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:02:26 I don't care what that fat fuck judge thinks. You said that OBAMA should have known about some judicial decision in the state of California. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:14:51 No, I said he should know that depriving illegals of benefits available to everyone else is unconstitutional because he taught Constitutional Law at Columbia University. If you want to go a step farther, the committee that wrote the particular version Obama referred to should have known because they probably have at least 50 law clerks on their staff to do that kind of research. So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law or you have a President who either doesn't know the subject he taught to college law students or he does not know the Bill he is talking about, assuming the committee is on the ball, or you have a President who stood up in front of a Joint Session of Congress and The American People and told a bald faced lie. You figure it out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 22:16:51 Its not lie, because the Law will say Illegals cannot sign up for the Public option. Rod, they already get health care. Federal Law prohibits Emergency Rooms from turning ANYONE away. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:23:19 We are talking about *HEALTH INSURANCE.* If a government run health insurance plan passes in an form, the government will be Constitutionally obligated to make it available to illegal aliens. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:26:05 See Aeros, you are so fucking stupid you can't even stay on subject. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:31:57 "So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law" From your version of events, this particular case only reached the 9th Circuit. Common law precedents formed in one circuit have no explicit precedence in other circuits, so no, this was not the law in New York or any of the states not under the jurisdiction of the 9th. In short, you're either full of shit or, again, you believe that all law experts should be familiar with every single judicial case that has ever taken place in all 50 states. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:45:54 It was heard on appeal and the appeals court upheld the lower court. California appealed to The United States Supreme Court who refuse to hear it. Now I don't know why they refused to hear it, but my guess would be they had already made a similar ruling when they said that illegals were entitled to Social Security. Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:49:05 HR is quite a mind reader. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:50:44 Especially when he declared that no one can show GWB lied because no one can read his mind. Now, HR is claiming he can read BHO's mind. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:52:43 "Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us." I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? I wouldn't blame him; most lawyers and legal experts focus on common law within their own spheres of influence. For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York, instead of somewhere like Alabama or, hell, even California. Opponents of health reform should be focusing on the negatives of the bill. They should not be obsessing over and trying to pick apart every little detail of a speech that in the end was little more than grandstanding. Hrothgar Member Thu Sep 10 22:57:30 There is a time and place to discuss disagreements over what the President has said. During the middle of his speech is not the place. That guy is not a hero. He's a loud mouth and showed a distinct lack of respect for his country's leader. For over 225 years our leaders have managed for the vast majority of the time keep debate and arguments civil. They have understood that the other political party is a fellow American opponent, not an enemy. It will be better off for us all if it stays that way. The outrageous extremists on the left and right need to be slapped down when they start getting out of hand and making thing uncivil. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:30:44 Rugian - I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. Rugian - For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York... LOL, why would someone whose job it is to teach Constitutional Law even consider teaching New York Common Law to their students. I swear you are just as stupid as roland. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:37:17 Ugh, this is headache inducing. Do you even know the most basic concepts of law? From the standpoint of common law interpretations of Constitutional law, you obviously look at USSC rulings first. But then you also look at how lower level courts interpret Constitutional law in the jurisdiction that you're likely to practice law in. This is important because depending on what circuit your area falls under, you can have vastly different common law precedents regarding Constitutional law interpretations in effect. Goddamn, I try to reasonably point something out to you and you make it impossible. You truly are a gifted troll Hot Rod. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:38:48 So basically, if a district or circuit court makes a precedent-establishing ruling on an aspect of Constitutional law in your area and it never reaches the Supreme Court, you need to know about that "local" ruling. Please don't argue against this, it is practically guaranteed to make you look stupid if you do. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:43:39 Taking the New York example, someone going to Columbia and planning to practice or teach Constitutional law in New York would spend a disproportionate amount of time looking at 2nd Circuit cases, in comparison to all other circuits. Get it now? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:49:45 Oh, and just to hammer the point home and to be explicit as possible, 2nd Circuit rulings on cases that related to the application of Constitutional law in a particular matter and that were not reviewed by the Supreme Court are examples of the "common law existing in New York" that are relevant to legal experts of Constitutional law. Good night Rod. When I get up in 7 hours I expect to see that you have accepted this and moved on. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:52:54 Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change. The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and inferior courts. The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one which courts can and do ignore occasionally. In other words, when the Supreme Court decided the case of allowing Social Security to illegal aliens, there was no need to hear further cases concerning benefits for illegals. "The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change." You cannot tell me that Obama is totally unaware of the Supreme Court decision concerning illegals and Social Security. Now, you go research it and if you can prove me wrong, I will certainly listen. Beyond that, I don't give a fuck what you think. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:01:20 The USSC made no decision concerning illegals. You seem to be woefully uneducated about how precedent is set. When the USSC refuses to hear a case, as it did in this instance, it is not saying "we affirm the decision of the lower court and establish binding precedent on all lower courts in the country." It is instead saying "we refuse to either affirm or overturn the decision of the lower court. The lower court's decision is binding precedent within its own jurisdiction but is not binding anywhere else." Please learn the basics of how common law works. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:03:20 In other words, your quote about stare decisis doesn't apply. "Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority)" That's where your example fails. By refusing to hear the case, no decision was made by the USSC. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:07:45 Does it burn you to know that someone a third of your age knows so much more about the system of law that has been used to govern you for the better part of a century than you do? Ninja Member Fri Sep 11 00:57:57 "It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. " Except that if he didn't even hear about it, it isn't a lie because he did not willfully know that it would be overturned (even if you weren't blowing smoke out your ass). How can you be so fucking old yet have no fucking clue about the basics of the court system? Are you senile or just a fucking retard? president bush Member Fri Sep 11 06:00:03 lol Hot Rod Member Fri Sep 11 06:46:23 As usual you fucking liberals don't have the brains to read what I posted so you can go fuck yourselves. I would rather argue with a fucking iron ball, it would be far more intelligent that a stupid assed liberal.
achhnji Member	Fri Sep 11 10:09:26 elcome to the Utopia Forums! The current time is Fri Sep 11 10:08:29 2009 , You have 0 new messages. Chat on the IRC server here Utopia Talk / Politics / Regarding The *HERO* That Shouted "lie" Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:23:22 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us? roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:08:33 "Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. " The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:10:31 That really pxss off the Americans who wanted mandatory sex change with the illegals. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 20:42:10 ttt Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:41:24 Hot Rod, I'm honestly curious. Do you think that a lawyer in a certain field knows about every single judicial decision in a state he doesn't practice in? Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:44:29 Why would he? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:47:49 Hell if I know, but you suggested that law experts should know every judicial decision in the history of all 50 states in your OP. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:58:55 No, I did not. Judge Napolitano has a research staff that helps him dig up that kind of stuff when he goes on TV to talk about it. It is his job to either know, or to find out the truth before he reports on it. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:02:26 I don't care what that fat fuck judge thinks. You said that OBAMA should have known about some judicial decision in the state of California. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:14:51 No, I said he should know that depriving illegals of benefits available to everyone else is unconstitutional because he taught Constitutional Law at Columbia University. If you want to go a step farther, the committee that wrote the particular version Obama referred to should have known because they probably have at least 50 law clerks on their staff to do that kind of research. So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law or you have a President who either doesn't know the subject he taught to college law students or he does not know the Bill he is talking about, assuming the committee is on the ball, or you have a President who stood up in front of a Joint Session of Congress and The American People and told a bald faced lie. You figure it out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 22:16:51 Its not lie, because the Law will say Illegals cannot sign up for the Public option. Rod, they already get health care. Federal Law prohibits Emergency Rooms from turning ANYONE away. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:23:19 We are talking about *HEALTH INSURANCE.* If a government run health insurance plan passes in an form, the government will be Constitutionally obligated to make it available to illegal aliens. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:26:05 See Aeros, you are so fucking stupid you can't even stay on subject. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:31:57 "So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law" From your version of events, this particular case only reached the 9th Circuit. Common law precedents formed in one circuit have no explicit precedence in other circuits, so no, this was not the law in New York or any of the states not under the jurisdiction of the 9th. In short, you're either full of shit or, again, you believe that all law experts should be familiar with every single judicial case that has ever taken place in all 50 states. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:45:54 It was heard on appeal and the appeals court upheld the lower court. California appealed to The United States Supreme Court who refuse to hear it. Now I don't know why they refused to hear it, but my guess would be they had already made a similar ruling when they said that illegals were entitled to Social Security. Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:49:05 HR is quite a mind reader. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:50:44 Especially when he declared that no one can show GWB lied because no one can read his mind. Now, HR is claiming he can read BHO's mind. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:52:43 "Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us." I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? I wouldn't blame him; most lawyers and legal experts focus on common law within their own spheres of influence. For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York, instead of somewhere like Alabama or, hell, even California. Opponents of health reform should be focusing on the negatives of the bill. They should not be obsessing over and trying to pick apart every little detail of a speech that in the end was little more than grandstanding. Hrothgar Member Thu Sep 10 22:57:30 There is a time and place to discuss disagreements over what the President has said. During the middle of his speech is not the place. That guy is not a hero. He's a loud mouth and showed a distinct lack of respect for his country's leader. For over 225 years our leaders have managed for the vast majority of the time keep debate and arguments civil. They have understood that the other political party is a fellow American opponent, not an enemy. It will be better off for us all if it stays that way. The outrageous extremists on the left and right need to be slapped down when they start getting out of hand and making thing uncivil. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:30:44 Rugian - I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. Rugian - For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York... LOL, why would someone whose job it is to teach Constitutional Law even consider teaching New York Common Law to their students. I swear you are just as stupid as roland. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:37:17 Ugh, this is headache inducing. Do you even know the most basic concepts of law? From the standpoint of common law interpretations of Constitutional law, you obviously look at USSC rulings first. But then you also look at how lower level courts interpret Constitutional law in the jurisdiction that you're likely to practice law in. This is important because depending on what circuit your area falls under, you can have vastly different common law precedents regarding Constitutional law interpretations in effect. Goddamn, I try to reasonably point something out to you and you make it impossible. You truly are a gifted troll Hot Rod. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:38:48 So basically, if a district or circuit court makes a precedent-establishing ruling on an aspect of Constitutional law in your area and it never reaches the Supreme Court, you need to know about that "local" ruling. Please don't argue against this, it is practically guaranteed to make you look stupid if you do. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:43:39 Taking the New York example, someone going to Columbia and planning to practice or teach Constitutional law in New York would spend a disproportionate amount of time looking at 2nd Circuit cases, in comparison to all other circuits. Get it now? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:49:45 Oh, and just to hammer the point home and to be explicit as possible, 2nd Circuit rulings on cases that related to the application of Constitutional law in a particular matter and that were not reviewed by the Supreme Court are examples of the "common law existing in New York" that are relevant to legal experts of Constitutional law. Good night Rod. When I get up in 7 hours I expect to see that you have accepted this and moved on. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:52:54 Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change. The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and inferior courts. The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one which courts can and do ignore occasionally. In other words, when the Supreme Court decided the case of allowing Social Security to illegal aliens, there was no need to hear further cases concerning benefits for illegals. "The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change." You cannot tell me that Obama is totally unaware of the Supreme Court decision concerning illegals and Social Security. Now, you go research it and if you can prove me wrong, I will certainly listen. Beyond that, I don't give a fuck what you think. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:01:20 The USSC made no decision concerning illegals. You seem to be woefully uneducated about how precedent is set. When the USSC refuses to hear a case, as it did in this instance, it is not saying "we affirm the decision of the lower court and establish binding precedent on all lower courts in the country." It is instead saying "we refuse to either affirm or overturn the decision of the lower court. The lower court's decision is binding precedent within its own jurisdiction but is not binding anywhere else." Please learn the basics of how common law works. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:03:20 In other words, your quote about stare decisis doesn't apply. "Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority)" That's where your example fails. By refusing to hear the case, no decision was made by the USSC. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:07:45 Does it burn you to know that someone a third of your age knows so much more about the system of law that has been used to govern you for the better part of a century than you do? Ninja Member Fri Sep 11 00:57:57 "It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. " Except that if he didn't even hear about it, it isn't a lie because he did not willfully know that it would be overturned (even if you weren't blowing smoke out your ass). How can you be so fucking old yet have no fucking clue about the basics of the court system? Are you senile or just a fucking retard? president bush Member Fri Sep 11 06:00:03 lol Hot Rod Member Fri Sep 11 06:46:23 As usual you fucking liberals don't have the brains to read what I posted so you can go fuck yourselves. I would rather argue with a fucking iron ball, it would be far more intelligent that a stupid assed liberal.
achhnji Member	Fri Sep 11 10:09:27 elcome to the Utopia Forums! The current time is Fri Sep 11 10:08:29 2009 , You have 0 new messages. Chat on the IRC server here Utopia Talk / Politics / Regarding The *HERO* That Shouted "lie" Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:23:22 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us? roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:08:33 "Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. " The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:10:31 That really pxss off the Americans who wanted mandatory sex change with the illegals. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 20:42:10 ttt Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:41:24 Hot Rod, I'm honestly curious. Do you think that a lawyer in a certain field knows about every single judicial decision in a state he doesn't practice in? Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:44:29 Why would he? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:47:49 Hell if I know, but you suggested that law experts should know every judicial decision in the history of all 50 states in your OP. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:58:55 No, I did not. Judge Napolitano has a research staff that helps him dig up that kind of stuff when he goes on TV to talk about it. It is his job to either know, or to find out the truth before he reports on it. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:02:26 I don't care what that fat fuck judge thinks. You said that OBAMA should have known about some judicial decision in the state of California. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:14:51 No, I said he should know that depriving illegals of benefits available to everyone else is unconstitutional because he taught Constitutional Law at Columbia University. If you want to go a step farther, the committee that wrote the particular version Obama referred to should have known because they probably have at least 50 law clerks on their staff to do that kind of research. So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law or you have a President who either doesn't know the subject he taught to college law students or he does not know the Bill he is talking about, assuming the committee is on the ball, or you have a President who stood up in front of a Joint Session of Congress and The American People and told a bald faced lie. You figure it out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 22:16:51 Its not lie, because the Law will say Illegals cannot sign up for the Public option. Rod, they already get health care. Federal Law prohibits Emergency Rooms from turning ANYONE away. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:23:19 We are talking about *HEALTH INSURANCE.* If a government run health insurance plan passes in an form, the government will be Constitutionally obligated to make it available to illegal aliens. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:26:05 See Aeros, you are so fucking stupid you can't even stay on subject. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:31:57 "So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law" From your version of events, this particular case only reached the 9th Circuit. Common law precedents formed in one circuit have no explicit precedence in other circuits, so no, this was not the law in New York or any of the states not under the jurisdiction of the 9th. In short, you're either full of shit or, again, you believe that all law experts should be familiar with every single judicial case that has ever taken place in all 50 states. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:45:54 It was heard on appeal and the appeals court upheld the lower court. California appealed to The United States Supreme Court who refuse to hear it. Now I don't know why they refused to hear it, but my guess would be they had already made a similar ruling when they said that illegals were entitled to Social Security. Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:49:05 HR is quite a mind reader. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:50:44 Especially when he declared that no one can show GWB lied because no one can read his mind. Now, HR is claiming he can read BHO's mind. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:52:43 "Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us." I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? I wouldn't blame him; most lawyers and legal experts focus on common law within their own spheres of influence. For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York, instead of somewhere like Alabama or, hell, even California. Opponents of health reform should be focusing on the negatives of the bill. They should not be obsessing over and trying to pick apart every little detail of a speech that in the end was little more than grandstanding. Hrothgar Member Thu Sep 10 22:57:30 There is a time and place to discuss disagreements over what the President has said. During the middle of his speech is not the place. That guy is not a hero. He's a loud mouth and showed a distinct lack of respect for his country's leader. For over 225 years our leaders have managed for the vast majority of the time keep debate and arguments civil. They have understood that the other political party is a fellow American opponent, not an enemy. It will be better off for us all if it stays that way. The outrageous extremists on the left and right need to be slapped down when they start getting out of hand and making thing uncivil. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:30:44 Rugian - I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. Rugian - For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York... LOL, why would someone whose job it is to teach Constitutional Law even consider teaching New York Common Law to their students. I swear you are just as stupid as roland. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:37:17 Ugh, this is headache inducing. Do you even know the most basic concepts of law? From the standpoint of common law interpretations of Constitutional law, you obviously look at USSC rulings first. But then you also look at how lower level courts interpret Constitutional law in the jurisdiction that you're likely to practice law in. This is important because depending on what circuit your area falls under, you can have vastly different common law precedents regarding Constitutional law interpretations in effect. Goddamn, I try to reasonably point something out to you and you make it impossible. You truly are a gifted troll Hot Rod. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:38:48 So basically, if a district or circuit court makes a precedent-establishing ruling on an aspect of Constitutional law in your area and it never reaches the Supreme Court, you need to know about that "local" ruling. Please don't argue against this, it is practically guaranteed to make you look stupid if you do. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:43:39 Taking the New York example, someone going to Columbia and planning to practice or teach Constitutional law in New York would spend a disproportionate amount of time looking at 2nd Circuit cases, in comparison to all other circuits. Get it now? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:49:45 Oh, and just to hammer the point home and to be explicit as possible, 2nd Circuit rulings on cases that related to the application of Constitutional law in a particular matter and that were not reviewed by the Supreme Court are examples of the "common law existing in New York" that are relevant to legal experts of Constitutional law. Good night Rod. When I get up in 7 hours I expect to see that you have accepted this and moved on. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:52:54 Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change. The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and inferior courts. The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one which courts can and do ignore occasionally. In other words, when the Supreme Court decided the case of allowing Social Security to illegal aliens, there was no need to hear further cases concerning benefits for illegals. "The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change." You cannot tell me that Obama is totally unaware of the Supreme Court decision concerning illegals and Social Security. Now, you go research it and if you can prove me wrong, I will certainly listen. Beyond that, I don't give a fuck what you think. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:01:20 The USSC made no decision concerning illegals. You seem to be woefully uneducated about how precedent is set. When the USSC refuses to hear a case, as it did in this instance, it is not saying "we affirm the decision of the lower court and establish binding precedent on all lower courts in the country." It is instead saying "we refuse to either affirm or overturn the decision of the lower court. The lower court's decision is binding precedent within its own jurisdiction but is not binding anywhere else." Please learn the basics of how common law works. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:03:20 In other words, your quote about stare decisis doesn't apply. "Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority)" That's where your example fails. By refusing to hear the case, no decision was made by the USSC. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:07:45 Does it burn you to know that someone a third of your age knows so much more about the system of law that has been used to govern you for the better part of a century than you do? Ninja Member Fri Sep 11 00:57:57 "It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. " Except that if he didn't even hear about it, it isn't a lie because he did not willfully know that it would be overturned (even if you weren't blowing smoke out your ass). How can you be so fucking old yet have no fucking clue about the basics of the court system? Are you senile or just a fucking retard? president bush Member Fri Sep 11 06:00:03 lol Hot Rod Member Fri Sep 11 06:46:23 As usual you fucking liberals don't have the brains to read what I posted so you can go fuck yourselves. I would rather argue with a fucking iron ball, it would be far more intelligent that a stupid assed liberal.
achhnji Member	Fri Sep 11 10:09:27 elcome to the Utopia Forums! The current time is Fri Sep 11 10:08:29 2009 , You have 0 new messages. Chat on the IRC server here Utopia Talk / Politics / Regarding The *HERO* That Shouted "lie" Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:23:22 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us? roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:08:33 "Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. " The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:10:31 That really pxss off the Americans who wanted mandatory sex change with the illegals. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 20:42:10 ttt Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:41:24 Hot Rod, I'm honestly curious. Do you think that a lawyer in a certain field knows about every single judicial decision in a state he doesn't practice in? Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:44:29 Why would he? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:47:49 Hell if I know, but you suggested that law experts should know every judicial decision in the history of all 50 states in your OP. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:58:55 No, I did not. Judge Napolitano has a research staff that helps him dig up that kind of stuff when he goes on TV to talk about it. It is his job to either know, or to find out the truth before he reports on it. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:02:26 I don't care what that fat fuck judge thinks. You said that OBAMA should have known about some judicial decision in the state of California. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:14:51 No, I said he should know that depriving illegals of benefits available to everyone else is unconstitutional because he taught Constitutional Law at Columbia University. If you want to go a step farther, the committee that wrote the particular version Obama referred to should have known because they probably have at least 50 law clerks on their staff to do that kind of research. So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law or you have a President who either doesn't know the subject he taught to college law students or he does not know the Bill he is talking about, assuming the committee is on the ball, or you have a President who stood up in front of a Joint Session of Congress and The American People and told a bald faced lie. You figure it out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 22:16:51 Its not lie, because the Law will say Illegals cannot sign up for the Public option. Rod, they already get health care. Federal Law prohibits Emergency Rooms from turning ANYONE away. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:23:19 We are talking about *HEALTH INSURANCE.* If a government run health insurance plan passes in an form, the government will be Constitutionally obligated to make it available to illegal aliens. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:26:05 See Aeros, you are so fucking stupid you can't even stay on subject. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:31:57 "So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law" From your version of events, this particular case only reached the 9th Circuit. Common law precedents formed in one circuit have no explicit precedence in other circuits, so no, this was not the law in New York or any of the states not under the jurisdiction of the 9th. In short, you're either full of shit or, again, you believe that all law experts should be familiar with every single judicial case that has ever taken place in all 50 states. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:45:54 It was heard on appeal and the appeals court upheld the lower court. California appealed to The United States Supreme Court who refuse to hear it. Now I don't know why they refused to hear it, but my guess would be they had already made a similar ruling when they said that illegals were entitled to Social Security. Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:49:05 HR is quite a mind reader. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:50:44 Especially when he declared that no one can show GWB lied because no one can read his mind. Now, HR is claiming he can read BHO's mind. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:52:43 "Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us." I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? I wouldn't blame him; most lawyers and legal experts focus on common law within their own spheres of influence. For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York, instead of somewhere like Alabama or, hell, even California. Opponents of health reform should be focusing on the negatives of the bill. They should not be obsessing over and trying to pick apart every little detail of a speech that in the end was little more than grandstanding. Hrothgar Member Thu Sep 10 22:57:30 There is a time and place to discuss disagreements over what the President has said. During the middle of his speech is not the place. That guy is not a hero. He's a loud mouth and showed a distinct lack of respect for his country's leader. For over 225 years our leaders have managed for the vast majority of the time keep debate and arguments civil. They have understood that the other political party is a fellow American opponent, not an enemy. It will be better off for us all if it stays that way. The outrageous extremists on the left and right need to be slapped down when they start getting out of hand and making thing uncivil. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:30:44 Rugian - I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. Rugian - For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York... LOL, why would someone whose job it is to teach Constitutional Law even consider teaching New York Common Law to their students. I swear you are just as stupid as roland. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:37:17 Ugh, this is headache inducing. Do you even know the most basic concepts of law? From the standpoint of common law interpretations of Constitutional law, you obviously look at USSC rulings first. But then you also look at how lower level courts interpret Constitutional law in the jurisdiction that you're likely to practice law in. This is important because depending on what circuit your area falls under, you can have vastly different common law precedents regarding Constitutional law interpretations in effect. Goddamn, I try to reasonably point something out to you and you make it impossible. You truly are a gifted troll Hot Rod. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:38:48 So basically, if a district or circuit court makes a precedent-establishing ruling on an aspect of Constitutional law in your area and it never reaches the Supreme Court, you need to know about that "local" ruling. Please don't argue against this, it is practically guaranteed to make you look stupid if you do. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:43:39 Taking the New York example, someone going to Columbia and planning to practice or teach Constitutional law in New York would spend a disproportionate amount of time looking at 2nd Circuit cases, in comparison to all other circuits. Get it now? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:49:45 Oh, and just to hammer the point home and to be explicit as possible, 2nd Circuit rulings on cases that related to the application of Constitutional law in a particular matter and that were not reviewed by the Supreme Court are examples of the "common law existing in New York" that are relevant to legal experts of Constitutional law. Good night Rod. When I get up in 7 hours I expect to see that you have accepted this and moved on. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:52:54 Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change. The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and inferior courts. The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one which courts can and do ignore occasionally. In other words, when the Supreme Court decided the case of allowing Social Security to illegal aliens, there was no need to hear further cases concerning benefits for illegals. "The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change." You cannot tell me that Obama is totally unaware of the Supreme Court decision concerning illegals and Social Security. Now, you go research it and if you can prove me wrong, I will certainly listen. Beyond that, I don't give a fuck what you think. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:01:20 The USSC made no decision concerning illegals. You seem to be woefully uneducated about how precedent is set. When the USSC refuses to hear a case, as it did in this instance, it is not saying "we affirm the decision of the lower court and establish binding precedent on all lower courts in the country." It is instead saying "we refuse to either affirm or overturn the decision of the lower court. The lower court's decision is binding precedent within its own jurisdiction but is not binding anywhere else." Please learn the basics of how common law works. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:03:20 In other words, your quote about stare decisis doesn't apply. "Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority)" That's where your example fails. By refusing to hear the case, no decision was made by the USSC. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:07:45 Does it burn you to know that someone a third of your age knows so much more about the system of law that has been used to govern you for the better part of a century than you do? Ninja Member Fri Sep 11 00:57:57 "It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. " Except that if he didn't even hear about it, it isn't a lie because he did not willfully know that it would be overturned (even if you weren't blowing smoke out your ass). How can you be so fucking old yet have no fucking clue about the basics of the court system? Are you senile or just a fucking retard? president bush Member Fri Sep 11 06:00:03 lol Hot Rod Member Fri Sep 11 06:46:23 As usual you fucking liberals don't have the brains to read what I posted so you can go fuck yourselves. I would rather argue with a fucking iron ball, it would be far more intelligent that a stupid assed liberal.
achhnji Member	Fri Sep 11 10:09:27 elcome to the Utopia Forums! The current time is Fri Sep 11 10:08:29 2009 , You have 0 new messages. Chat on the IRC server here Utopia Talk / Politics / Regarding The *HERO* That Shouted "lie" Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:23:22 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us? roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:08:33 "Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. " The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:10:31 That really pxss off the Americans who wanted mandatory sex change with the illegals. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 20:42:10 ttt Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:41:24 Hot Rod, I'm honestly curious. Do you think that a lawyer in a certain field knows about every single judicial decision in a state he doesn't practice in? Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:44:29 Why would he? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:47:49 Hell if I know, but you suggested that law experts should know every judicial decision in the history of all 50 states in your OP. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:58:55 No, I did not. Judge Napolitano has a research staff that helps him dig up that kind of stuff when he goes on TV to talk about it. It is his job to either know, or to find out the truth before he reports on it. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:02:26 I don't care what that fat fuck judge thinks. You said that OBAMA should have known about some judicial decision in the state of California. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:14:51 No, I said he should know that depriving illegals of benefits available to everyone else is unconstitutional because he taught Constitutional Law at Columbia University. If you want to go a step farther, the committee that wrote the particular version Obama referred to should have known because they probably have at least 50 law clerks on their staff to do that kind of research. So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law or you have a President who either doesn't know the subject he taught to college law students or he does not know the Bill he is talking about, assuming the committee is on the ball, or you have a President who stood up in front of a Joint Session of Congress and The American People and told a bald faced lie. You figure it out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 22:16:51 Its not lie, because the Law will say Illegals cannot sign up for the Public option. Rod, they already get health care. Federal Law prohibits Emergency Rooms from turning ANYONE away. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:23:19 We are talking about *HEALTH INSURANCE.* If a government run health insurance plan passes in an form, the government will be Constitutionally obligated to make it available to illegal aliens. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:26:05 See Aeros, you are so fucking stupid you can't even stay on subject. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:31:57 "So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law" From your version of events, this particular case only reached the 9th Circuit. Common law precedents formed in one circuit have no explicit precedence in other circuits, so no, this was not the law in New York or any of the states not under the jurisdiction of the 9th. In short, you're either full of shit or, again, you believe that all law experts should be familiar with every single judicial case that has ever taken place in all 50 states. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:45:54 It was heard on appeal and the appeals court upheld the lower court. California appealed to The United States Supreme Court who refuse to hear it. Now I don't know why they refused to hear it, but my guess would be they had already made a similar ruling when they said that illegals were entitled to Social Security. Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:49:05 HR is quite a mind reader. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:50:44 Especially when he declared that no one can show GWB lied because no one can read his mind. Now, HR is claiming he can read BHO's mind. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:52:43 "Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us." I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? I wouldn't blame him; most lawyers and legal experts focus on common law within their own spheres of influence. For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York, instead of somewhere like Alabama or, hell, even California. Opponents of health reform should be focusing on the negatives of the bill. They should not be obsessing over and trying to pick apart every little detail of a speech that in the end was little more than grandstanding. Hrothgar Member Thu Sep 10 22:57:30 There is a time and place to discuss disagreements over what the President has said. During the middle of his speech is not the place. That guy is not a hero. He's a loud mouth and showed a distinct lack of respect for his country's leader. For over 225 years our leaders have managed for the vast majority of the time keep debate and arguments civil. They have understood that the other political party is a fellow American opponent, not an enemy. It will be better off for us all if it stays that way. The outrageous extremists on the left and right need to be slapped down when they start getting out of hand and making thing uncivil. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:30:44 Rugian - I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. Rugian - For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York... LOL, why would someone whose job it is to teach Constitutional Law even consider teaching New York Common Law to their students. I swear you are just as stupid as roland. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:37:17 Ugh, this is headache inducing. Do you even know the most basic concepts of law? From the standpoint of common law interpretations of Constitutional law, you obviously look at USSC rulings first. But then you also look at how lower level courts interpret Constitutional law in the jurisdiction that you're likely to practice law in. This is important because depending on what circuit your area falls under, you can have vastly different common law precedents regarding Constitutional law interpretations in effect. Goddamn, I try to reasonably point something out to you and you make it impossible. You truly are a gifted troll Hot Rod. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:38:48 So basically, if a district or circuit court makes a precedent-establishing ruling on an aspect of Constitutional law in your area and it never reaches the Supreme Court, you need to know about that "local" ruling. Please don't argue against this, it is practically guaranteed to make you look stupid if you do. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:43:39 Taking the New York example, someone going to Columbia and planning to practice or teach Constitutional law in New York would spend a disproportionate amount of time looking at 2nd Circuit cases, in comparison to all other circuits. Get it now? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:49:45 Oh, and just to hammer the point home and to be explicit as possible, 2nd Circuit rulings on cases that related to the application of Constitutional law in a particular matter and that were not reviewed by the Supreme Court are examples of the "common law existing in New York" that are relevant to legal experts of Constitutional law. Good night Rod. When I get up in 7 hours I expect to see that you have accepted this and moved on. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:52:54 Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change. The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and inferior courts. The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one which courts can and do ignore occasionally. In other words, when the Supreme Court decided the case of allowing Social Security to illegal aliens, there was no need to hear further cases concerning benefits for illegals. "The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change." You cannot tell me that Obama is totally unaware of the Supreme Court decision concerning illegals and Social Security. Now, you go research it and if you can prove me wrong, I will certainly listen. Beyond that, I don't give a fuck what you think. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:01:20 The USSC made no decision concerning illegals. You seem to be woefully uneducated about how precedent is set. When the USSC refuses to hear a case, as it did in this instance, it is not saying "we affirm the decision of the lower court and establish binding precedent on all lower courts in the country." It is instead saying "we refuse to either affirm or overturn the decision of the lower court. The lower court's decision is binding precedent within its own jurisdiction but is not binding anywhere else." Please learn the basics of how common law works. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:03:20 In other words, your quote about stare decisis doesn't apply. "Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority)" That's where your example fails. By refusing to hear the case, no decision was made by the USSC. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:07:45 Does it burn you to know that someone a third of your age knows so much more about the system of law that has been used to govern you for the better part of a century than you do? Ninja Member Fri Sep 11 00:57:57 "It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. " Except that if he didn't even hear about it, it isn't a lie because he did not willfully know that it would be overturned (even if you weren't blowing smoke out your ass). How can you be so fucking old yet have no fucking clue about the basics of the court system? Are you senile or just a fucking retard? president bush Member Fri Sep 11 06:00:03 lol Hot Rod Member Fri Sep 11 06:46:23 As usual you fucking liberals don't have the brains to read what I posted so you can go fuck yourselves. I would rather argue with a fucking iron ball, it would be far more intelligent that a stupid assed liberal.
achhnji Member	Fri Sep 11 10:09:28 elcome to the Utopia Forums! The current time is Fri Sep 11 10:08:29 2009 , You have 0 new messages. Chat on the IRC server here Utopia Talk / Politics / Regarding The *HERO* That Shouted "lie" Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:23:22 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us? roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:08:33 "Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. " The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:10:31 That really pxss off the Americans who wanted mandatory sex change with the illegals. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 20:42:10 ttt Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:41:24 Hot Rod, I'm honestly curious. Do you think that a lawyer in a certain field knows about every single judicial decision in a state he doesn't practice in? Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:44:29 Why would he? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:47:49 Hell if I know, but you suggested that law experts should know every judicial decision in the history of all 50 states in your OP. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:58:55 No, I did not. Judge Napolitano has a research staff that helps him dig up that kind of stuff when he goes on TV to talk about it. It is his job to either know, or to find out the truth before he reports on it. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:02:26 I don't care what that fat fuck judge thinks. You said that OBAMA should have known about some judicial decision in the state of California. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:14:51 No, I said he should know that depriving illegals of benefits available to everyone else is unconstitutional because he taught Constitutional Law at Columbia University. If you want to go a step farther, the committee that wrote the particular version Obama referred to should have known because they probably have at least 50 law clerks on their staff to do that kind of research. So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law or you have a President who either doesn't know the subject he taught to college law students or he does not know the Bill he is talking about, assuming the committee is on the ball, or you have a President who stood up in front of a Joint Session of Congress and The American People and told a bald faced lie. You figure it out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 22:16:51 Its not lie, because the Law will say Illegals cannot sign up for the Public option. Rod, they already get health care. Federal Law prohibits Emergency Rooms from turning ANYONE away. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:23:19 We are talking about *HEALTH INSURANCE.* If a government run health insurance plan passes in an form, the government will be Constitutionally obligated to make it available to illegal aliens. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:26:05 See Aeros, you are so fucking stupid you can't even stay on subject. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:31:57 "So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law" From your version of events, this particular case only reached the 9th Circuit. Common law precedents formed in one circuit have no explicit precedence in other circuits, so no, this was not the law in New York or any of the states not under the jurisdiction of the 9th. In short, you're either full of shit or, again, you believe that all law experts should be familiar with every single judicial case that has ever taken place in all 50 states. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:45:54 It was heard on appeal and the appeals court upheld the lower court. California appealed to The United States Supreme Court who refuse to hear it. Now I don't know why they refused to hear it, but my guess would be they had already made a similar ruling when they said that illegals were entitled to Social Security. Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:49:05 HR is quite a mind reader. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:50:44 Especially when he declared that no one can show GWB lied because no one can read his mind. Now, HR is claiming he can read BHO's mind. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:52:43 "Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us." I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? I wouldn't blame him; most lawyers and legal experts focus on common law within their own spheres of influence. For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York, instead of somewhere like Alabama or, hell, even California. Opponents of health reform should be focusing on the negatives of the bill. They should not be obsessing over and trying to pick apart every little detail of a speech that in the end was little more than grandstanding. Hrothgar Member Thu Sep 10 22:57:30 There is a time and place to discuss disagreements over what the President has said. During the middle of his speech is not the place. That guy is not a hero. He's a loud mouth and showed a distinct lack of respect for his country's leader. For over 225 years our leaders have managed for the vast majority of the time keep debate and arguments civil. They have understood that the other political party is a fellow American opponent, not an enemy. It will be better off for us all if it stays that way. The outrageous extremists on the left and right need to be slapped down when they start getting out of hand and making thing uncivil. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:30:44 Rugian - I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. Rugian - For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York... LOL, why would someone whose job it is to teach Constitutional Law even consider teaching New York Common Law to their students. I swear you are just as stupid as roland. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:37:17 Ugh, this is headache inducing. Do you even know the most basic concepts of law? From the standpoint of common law interpretations of Constitutional law, you obviously look at USSC rulings first. But then you also look at how lower level courts interpret Constitutional law in the jurisdiction that you're likely to practice law in. This is important because depending on what circuit your area falls under, you can have vastly different common law precedents regarding Constitutional law interpretations in effect. Goddamn, I try to reasonably point something out to you and you make it impossible. You truly are a gifted troll Hot Rod. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:38:48 So basically, if a district or circuit court makes a precedent-establishing ruling on an aspect of Constitutional law in your area and it never reaches the Supreme Court, you need to know about that "local" ruling. Please don't argue against this, it is practically guaranteed to make you look stupid if you do. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:43:39 Taking the New York example, someone going to Columbia and planning to practice or teach Constitutional law in New York would spend a disproportionate amount of time looking at 2nd Circuit cases, in comparison to all other circuits. Get it now? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:49:45 Oh, and just to hammer the point home and to be explicit as possible, 2nd Circuit rulings on cases that related to the application of Constitutional law in a particular matter and that were not reviewed by the Supreme Court are examples of the "common law existing in New York" that are relevant to legal experts of Constitutional law. Good night Rod. When I get up in 7 hours I expect to see that you have accepted this and moved on. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:52:54 Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change. The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and inferior courts. The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one which courts can and do ignore occasionally. In other words, when the Supreme Court decided the case of allowing Social Security to illegal aliens, there was no need to hear further cases concerning benefits for illegals. "The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change." You cannot tell me that Obama is totally unaware of the Supreme Court decision concerning illegals and Social Security. Now, you go research it and if you can prove me wrong, I will certainly listen. Beyond that, I don't give a fuck what you think. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:01:20 The USSC made no decision concerning illegals. You seem to be woefully uneducated about how precedent is set. When the USSC refuses to hear a case, as it did in this instance, it is not saying "we affirm the decision of the lower court and establish binding precedent on all lower courts in the country." It is instead saying "we refuse to either affirm or overturn the decision of the lower court. The lower court's decision is binding precedent within its own jurisdiction but is not binding anywhere else." Please learn the basics of how common law works. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:03:20 In other words, your quote about stare decisis doesn't apply. "Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority)" That's where your example fails. By refusing to hear the case, no decision was made by the USSC. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:07:45 Does it burn you to know that someone a third of your age knows so much more about the system of law that has been used to govern you for the better part of a century than you do? Ninja Member Fri Sep 11 00:57:57 "It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. " Except that if he didn't even hear about it, it isn't a lie because he did not willfully know that it would be overturned (even if you weren't blowing smoke out your ass). How can you be so fucking old yet have no fucking clue about the basics of the court system? Are you senile or just a fucking retard? president bush Member Fri Sep 11 06:00:03 lol Hot Rod Member Fri Sep 11 06:46:23 As usual you fucking liberals don't have the brains to read what I posted so you can go fuck yourselves. I would rather argue with a fucking iron ball, it would be far more intelligent that a stupid assed liberal.
achhnji Member	Fri Sep 11 10:09:28 elcome to the Utopia Forums! The current time is Fri Sep 11 10:08:29 2009 , You have 0 new messages. Chat on the IRC server here Utopia Talk / Politics / Regarding The *HERO* That Shouted "lie" Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:23:22 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us? roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:08:33 "Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. " The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:10:31 That really pxss off the Americans who wanted mandatory sex change with the illegals. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 20:42:10 ttt Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:41:24 Hot Rod, I'm honestly curious. Do you think that a lawyer in a certain field knows about every single judicial decision in a state he doesn't practice in? Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:44:29 Why would he? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:47:49 Hell if I know, but you suggested that law experts should know every judicial decision in the history of all 50 states in your OP. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:58:55 No, I did not. Judge Napolitano has a research staff that helps him dig up that kind of stuff when he goes on TV to talk about it. It is his job to either know, or to find out the truth before he reports on it. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:02:26 I don't care what that fat fuck judge thinks. You said that OBAMA should have known about some judicial decision in the state of California. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:14:51 No, I said he should know that depriving illegals of benefits available to everyone else is unconstitutional because he taught Constitutional Law at Columbia University. If you want to go a step farther, the committee that wrote the particular version Obama referred to should have known because they probably have at least 50 law clerks on their staff to do that kind of research. So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law or you have a President who either doesn't know the subject he taught to college law students or he does not know the Bill he is talking about, assuming the committee is on the ball, or you have a President who stood up in front of a Joint Session of Congress and The American People and told a bald faced lie. You figure it out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 22:16:51 Its not lie, because the Law will say Illegals cannot sign up for the Public option. Rod, they already get health care. Federal Law prohibits Emergency Rooms from turning ANYONE away. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:23:19 We are talking about *HEALTH INSURANCE.* If a government run health insurance plan passes in an form, the government will be Constitutionally obligated to make it available to illegal aliens. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:26:05 See Aeros, you are so fucking stupid you can't even stay on subject. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:31:57 "So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law" From your version of events, this particular case only reached the 9th Circuit. Common law precedents formed in one circuit have no explicit precedence in other circuits, so no, this was not the law in New York or any of the states not under the jurisdiction of the 9th. In short, you're either full of shit or, again, you believe that all law experts should be familiar with every single judicial case that has ever taken place in all 50 states. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:45:54 It was heard on appeal and the appeals court upheld the lower court. California appealed to The United States Supreme Court who refuse to hear it. Now I don't know why they refused to hear it, but my guess would be they had already made a similar ruling when they said that illegals were entitled to Social Security. Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:49:05 HR is quite a mind reader. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:50:44 Especially when he declared that no one can show GWB lied because no one can read his mind. Now, HR is claiming he can read BHO's mind. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:52:43 "Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us." I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? I wouldn't blame him; most lawyers and legal experts focus on common law within their own spheres of influence. For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York, instead of somewhere like Alabama or, hell, even California. Opponents of health reform should be focusing on the negatives of the bill. They should not be obsessing over and trying to pick apart every little detail of a speech that in the end was little more than grandstanding. Hrothgar Member Thu Sep 10 22:57:30 There is a time and place to discuss disagreements over what the President has said. During the middle of his speech is not the place. That guy is not a hero. He's a loud mouth and showed a distinct lack of respect for his country's leader. For over 225 years our leaders have managed for the vast majority of the time keep debate and arguments civil. They have understood that the other political party is a fellow American opponent, not an enemy. It will be better off for us all if it stays that way. The outrageous extremists on the left and right need to be slapped down when they start getting out of hand and making thing uncivil. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:30:44 Rugian - I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. Rugian - For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York... LOL, why would someone whose job it is to teach Constitutional Law even consider teaching New York Common Law to their students. I swear you are just as stupid as roland. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:37:17 Ugh, this is headache inducing. Do you even know the most basic concepts of law? From the standpoint of common law interpretations of Constitutional law, you obviously look at USSC rulings first. But then you also look at how lower level courts interpret Constitutional law in the jurisdiction that you're likely to practice law in. This is important because depending on what circuit your area falls under, you can have vastly different common law precedents regarding Constitutional law interpretations in effect. Goddamn, I try to reasonably point something out to you and you make it impossible. You truly are a gifted troll Hot Rod. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:38:48 So basically, if a district or circuit court makes a precedent-establishing ruling on an aspect of Constitutional law in your area and it never reaches the Supreme Court, you need to know about that "local" ruling. Please don't argue against this, it is practically guaranteed to make you look stupid if you do. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:43:39 Taking the New York example, someone going to Columbia and planning to practice or teach Constitutional law in New York would spend a disproportionate amount of time looking at 2nd Circuit cases, in comparison to all other circuits. Get it now? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:49:45 Oh, and just to hammer the point home and to be explicit as possible, 2nd Circuit rulings on cases that related to the application of Constitutional law in a particular matter and that were not reviewed by the Supreme Court are examples of the "common law existing in New York" that are relevant to legal experts of Constitutional law. Good night Rod. When I get up in 7 hours I expect to see that you have accepted this and moved on. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:52:54 Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change. The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and inferior courts. The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one which courts can and do ignore occasionally. In other words, when the Supreme Court decided the case of allowing Social Security to illegal aliens, there was no need to hear further cases concerning benefits for illegals. "The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change." You cannot tell me that Obama is totally unaware of the Supreme Court decision concerning illegals and Social Security. Now, you go research it and if you can prove me wrong, I will certainly listen. Beyond that, I don't give a fuck what you think. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:01:20 The USSC made no decision concerning illegals. You seem to be woefully uneducated about how precedent is set. When the USSC refuses to hear a case, as it did in this instance, it is not saying "we affirm the decision of the lower court and establish binding precedent on all lower courts in the country." It is instead saying "we refuse to either affirm or overturn the decision of the lower court. The lower court's decision is binding precedent within its own jurisdiction but is not binding anywhere else." Please learn the basics of how common law works. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:03:20 In other words, your quote about stare decisis doesn't apply. "Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority)" That's where your example fails. By refusing to hear the case, no decision was made by the USSC. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:07:45 Does it burn you to know that someone a third of your age knows so much more about the system of law that has been used to govern you for the better part of a century than you do? Ninja Member Fri Sep 11 00:57:57 "It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. " Except that if he didn't even hear about it, it isn't a lie because he did not willfully know that it would be overturned (even if you weren't blowing smoke out your ass). How can you be so fucking old yet have no fucking clue about the basics of the court system? Are you senile or just a fucking retard? president bush Member Fri Sep 11 06:00:03 lol Hot Rod Member Fri Sep 11 06:46:23 As usual you fucking liberals don't have the brains to read what I posted so you can go fuck yourselves. I would rather argue with a fucking iron ball, it would be far more intelligent that a stupid assed liberal.
achhnji Member	Fri Sep 11 10:09:28 elcome to the Utopia Forums! The current time is Fri Sep 11 10:08:29 2009 , You have 0 new messages. Chat on the IRC server here Utopia Talk / Politics / Regarding The *HERO* That Shouted "lie" Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:23:22 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us? roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:08:33 "Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. " The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:10:31 That really pxss off the Americans who wanted mandatory sex change with the illegals. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 20:42:10 ttt Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:41:24 Hot Rod, I'm honestly curious. Do you think that a lawyer in a certain field knows about every single judicial decision in a state he doesn't practice in? Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:44:29 Why would he? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:47:49 Hell if I know, but you suggested that law experts should know every judicial decision in the history of all 50 states in your OP. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:58:55 No, I did not. Judge Napolitano has a research staff that helps him dig up that kind of stuff when he goes on TV to talk about it. It is his job to either know, or to find out the truth before he reports on it. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:02:26 I don't care what that fat fuck judge thinks. You said that OBAMA should have known about some judicial decision in the state of California. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:14:51 No, I said he should know that depriving illegals of benefits available to everyone else is unconstitutional because he taught Constitutional Law at Columbia University. If you want to go a step farther, the committee that wrote the particular version Obama referred to should have known because they probably have at least 50 law clerks on their staff to do that kind of research. So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law or you have a President who either doesn't know the subject he taught to college law students or he does not know the Bill he is talking about, assuming the committee is on the ball, or you have a President who stood up in front of a Joint Session of Congress and The American People and told a bald faced lie. You figure it out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 22:16:51 Its not lie, because the Law will say Illegals cannot sign up for the Public option. Rod, they already get health care. Federal Law prohibits Emergency Rooms from turning ANYONE away. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:23:19 We are talking about *HEALTH INSURANCE.* If a government run health insurance plan passes in an form, the government will be Constitutionally obligated to make it available to illegal aliens. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:26:05 See Aeros, you are so fucking stupid you can't even stay on subject. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:31:57 "So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law" From your version of events, this particular case only reached the 9th Circuit. Common law precedents formed in one circuit have no explicit precedence in other circuits, so no, this was not the law in New York or any of the states not under the jurisdiction of the 9th. In short, you're either full of shit or, again, you believe that all law experts should be familiar with every single judicial case that has ever taken place in all 50 states. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:45:54 It was heard on appeal and the appeals court upheld the lower court. California appealed to The United States Supreme Court who refuse to hear it. Now I don't know why they refused to hear it, but my guess would be they had already made a similar ruling when they said that illegals were entitled to Social Security. Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:49:05 HR is quite a mind reader. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:50:44 Especially when he declared that no one can show GWB lied because no one can read his mind. Now, HR is claiming he can read BHO's mind. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:52:43 "Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us." I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? I wouldn't blame him; most lawyers and legal experts focus on common law within their own spheres of influence. For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York, instead of somewhere like Alabama or, hell, even California. Opponents of health reform should be focusing on the negatives of the bill. They should not be obsessing over and trying to pick apart every little detail of a speech that in the end was little more than grandstanding. Hrothgar Member Thu Sep 10 22:57:30 There is a time and place to discuss disagreements over what the President has said. During the middle of his speech is not the place. That guy is not a hero. He's a loud mouth and showed a distinct lack of respect for his country's leader. For over 225 years our leaders have managed for the vast majority of the time keep debate and arguments civil. They have understood that the other political party is a fellow American opponent, not an enemy. It will be better off for us all if it stays that way. The outrageous extremists on the left and right need to be slapped down when they start getting out of hand and making thing uncivil. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:30:44 Rugian - I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. Rugian - For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York... LOL, why would someone whose job it is to teach Constitutional Law even consider teaching New York Common Law to their students. I swear you are just as stupid as roland. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:37:17 Ugh, this is headache inducing. Do you even know the most basic concepts of law? From the standpoint of common law interpretations of Constitutional law, you obviously look at USSC rulings first. But then you also look at how lower level courts interpret Constitutional law in the jurisdiction that you're likely to practice law in. This is important because depending on what circuit your area falls under, you can have vastly different common law precedents regarding Constitutional law interpretations in effect. Goddamn, I try to reasonably point something out to you and you make it impossible. You truly are a gifted troll Hot Rod. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:38:48 So basically, if a district or circuit court makes a precedent-establishing ruling on an aspect of Constitutional law in your area and it never reaches the Supreme Court, you need to know about that "local" ruling. Please don't argue against this, it is practically guaranteed to make you look stupid if you do. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:43:39 Taking the New York example, someone going to Columbia and planning to practice or teach Constitutional law in New York would spend a disproportionate amount of time looking at 2nd Circuit cases, in comparison to all other circuits. Get it now? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:49:45 Oh, and just to hammer the point home and to be explicit as possible, 2nd Circuit rulings on cases that related to the application of Constitutional law in a particular matter and that were not reviewed by the Supreme Court are examples of the "common law existing in New York" that are relevant to legal experts of Constitutional law. Good night Rod. When I get up in 7 hours I expect to see that you have accepted this and moved on. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:52:54 Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change. The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and inferior courts. The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one which courts can and do ignore occasionally. In other words, when the Supreme Court decided the case of allowing Social Security to illegal aliens, there was no need to hear further cases concerning benefits for illegals. "The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change." You cannot tell me that Obama is totally unaware of the Supreme Court decision concerning illegals and Social Security. Now, you go research it and if you can prove me wrong, I will certainly listen. Beyond that, I don't give a fuck what you think. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:01:20 The USSC made no decision concerning illegals. You seem to be woefully uneducated about how precedent is set. When the USSC refuses to hear a case, as it did in this instance, it is not saying "we affirm the decision of the lower court and establish binding precedent on all lower courts in the country." It is instead saying "we refuse to either affirm or overturn the decision of the lower court. The lower court's decision is binding precedent within its own jurisdiction but is not binding anywhere else." Please learn the basics of how common law works. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:03:20 In other words, your quote about stare decisis doesn't apply. "Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority)" That's where your example fails. By refusing to hear the case, no decision was made by the USSC. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:07:45 Does it burn you to know that someone a third of your age knows so much more about the system of law that has been used to govern you for the better part of a century than you do? Ninja Member Fri Sep 11 00:57:57 "It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. " Except that if he didn't even hear about it, it isn't a lie because he did not willfully know that it would be overturned (even if you weren't blowing smoke out your ass). How can you be so fucking old yet have no fucking clue about the basics of the court system? Are you senile or just a fucking retard? president bush Member Fri Sep 11 06:00:03 lol Hot Rod Member Fri Sep 11 06:46:23 As usual you fucking liberals don't have the brains to read what I posted so you can go fuck yourselves. I would rather argue with a fucking iron ball, it would be far more intelligent that a stupid assed liberal.
achhnji Member	Fri Sep 11 10:09:29 elcome to the Utopia Forums! The current time is Fri Sep 11 10:08:29 2009 , You have 0 new messages. Chat on the IRC server here Utopia Talk / Politics / Regarding The *HERO* That Shouted "lie" Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:23:22 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us? roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:08:33 "Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. " The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:10:31 That really pxss off the Americans who wanted mandatory sex change with the illegals. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 20:42:10 ttt Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:41:24 Hot Rod, I'm honestly curious. Do you think that a lawyer in a certain field knows about every single judicial decision in a state he doesn't practice in? Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:44:29 Why would he? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:47:49 Hell if I know, but you suggested that law experts should know every judicial decision in the history of all 50 states in your OP. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:58:55 No, I did not. Judge Napolitano has a research staff that helps him dig up that kind of stuff when he goes on TV to talk about it. It is his job to either know, or to find out the truth before he reports on it. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:02:26 I don't care what that fat fuck judge thinks. You said that OBAMA should have known about some judicial decision in the state of California. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:14:51 No, I said he should know that depriving illegals of benefits available to everyone else is unconstitutional because he taught Constitutional Law at Columbia University. If you want to go a step farther, the committee that wrote the particular version Obama referred to should have known because they probably have at least 50 law clerks on their staff to do that kind of research. So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law or you have a President who either doesn't know the subject he taught to college law students or he does not know the Bill he is talking about, assuming the committee is on the ball, or you have a President who stood up in front of a Joint Session of Congress and The American People and told a bald faced lie. You figure it out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 22:16:51 Its not lie, because the Law will say Illegals cannot sign up for the Public option. Rod, they already get health care. Federal Law prohibits Emergency Rooms from turning ANYONE away. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:23:19 We are talking about *HEALTH INSURANCE.* If a government run health insurance plan passes in an form, the government will be Constitutionally obligated to make it available to illegal aliens. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:26:05 See Aeros, you are so fucking stupid you can't even stay on subject. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:31:57 "So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law" From your version of events, this particular case only reached the 9th Circuit. Common law precedents formed in one circuit have no explicit precedence in other circuits, so no, this was not the law in New York or any of the states not under the jurisdiction of the 9th. In short, you're either full of shit or, again, you believe that all law experts should be familiar with every single judicial case that has ever taken place in all 50 states. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:45:54 It was heard on appeal and the appeals court upheld the lower court. California appealed to The United States Supreme Court who refuse to hear it. Now I don't know why they refused to hear it, but my guess would be they had already made a similar ruling when they said that illegals were entitled to Social Security. Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:49:05 HR is quite a mind reader. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:50:44 Especially when he declared that no one can show GWB lied because no one can read his mind. Now, HR is claiming he can read BHO's mind. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:52:43 "Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us." I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? I wouldn't blame him; most lawyers and legal experts focus on common law within their own spheres of influence. For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York, instead of somewhere like Alabama or, hell, even California. Opponents of health reform should be focusing on the negatives of the bill. They should not be obsessing over and trying to pick apart every little detail of a speech that in the end was little more than grandstanding. Hrothgar Member Thu Sep 10 22:57:30 There is a time and place to discuss disagreements over what the President has said. During the middle of his speech is not the place. That guy is not a hero. He's a loud mouth and showed a distinct lack of respect for his country's leader. For over 225 years our leaders have managed for the vast majority of the time keep debate and arguments civil. They have understood that the other political party is a fellow American opponent, not an enemy. It will be better off for us all if it stays that way. The outrageous extremists on the left and right need to be slapped down when they start getting out of hand and making thing uncivil. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:30:44 Rugian - I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. Rugian - For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York... LOL, why would someone whose job it is to teach Constitutional Law even consider teaching New York Common Law to their students. I swear you are just as stupid as roland. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:37:17 Ugh, this is headache inducing. Do you even know the most basic concepts of law? From the standpoint of common law interpretations of Constitutional law, you obviously look at USSC rulings first. But then you also look at how lower level courts interpret Constitutional law in the jurisdiction that you're likely to practice law in. This is important because depending on what circuit your area falls under, you can have vastly different common law precedents regarding Constitutional law interpretations in effect. Goddamn, I try to reasonably point something out to you and you make it impossible. You truly are a gifted troll Hot Rod. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:38:48 So basically, if a district or circuit court makes a precedent-establishing ruling on an aspect of Constitutional law in your area and it never reaches the Supreme Court, you need to know about that "local" ruling. Please don't argue against this, it is practically guaranteed to make you look stupid if you do. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:43:39 Taking the New York example, someone going to Columbia and planning to practice or teach Constitutional law in New York would spend a disproportionate amount of time looking at 2nd Circuit cases, in comparison to all other circuits. Get it now? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:49:45 Oh, and just to hammer the point home and to be explicit as possible, 2nd Circuit rulings on cases that related to the application of Constitutional law in a particular matter and that were not reviewed by the Supreme Court are examples of the "common law existing in New York" that are relevant to legal experts of Constitutional law. Good night Rod. When I get up in 7 hours I expect to see that you have accepted this and moved on. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:52:54 Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change. The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and inferior courts. The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one which courts can and do ignore occasionally. In other words, when the Supreme Court decided the case of allowing Social Security to illegal aliens, there was no need to hear further cases concerning benefits for illegals. "The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change." You cannot tell me that Obama is totally unaware of the Supreme Court decision concerning illegals and Social Security. Now, you go research it and if you can prove me wrong, I will certainly listen. Beyond that, I don't give a fuck what you think. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:01:20 The USSC made no decision concerning illegals. You seem to be woefully uneducated about how precedent is set. When the USSC refuses to hear a case, as it did in this instance, it is not saying "we affirm the decision of the lower court and establish binding precedent on all lower courts in the country." It is instead saying "we refuse to either affirm or overturn the decision of the lower court. The lower court's decision is binding precedent within its own jurisdiction but is not binding anywhere else." Please learn the basics of how common law works. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:03:20 In other words, your quote about stare decisis doesn't apply. "Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority)" That's where your example fails. By refusing to hear the case, no decision was made by the USSC. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:07:45 Does it burn you to know that someone a third of your age knows so much more about the system of law that has been used to govern you for the better part of a century than you do? Ninja Member Fri Sep 11 00:57:57 "It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. " Except that if he didn't even hear about it, it isn't a lie because he did not willfully know that it would be overturned (even if you weren't blowing smoke out your ass). How can you be so fucking old yet have no fucking clue about the basics of the court system? Are you senile or just a fucking retard? president bush Member Fri Sep 11 06:00:03 lol Hot Rod Member Fri Sep 11 06:46:23 As usual you fucking liberals don't have the brains to read what I posted so you can go fuck yourselves. I would rather argue with a fucking iron ball, it would be far more intelligent that a stupid assed liberal.
achhnji Member	Fri Sep 11 10:09:29 elcome to the Utopia Forums! The current time is Fri Sep 11 10:08:29 2009 , You have 0 new messages. Chat on the IRC server here Utopia Talk / Politics / Regarding The *HERO* That Shouted "lie" Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:23:22 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us? roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:08:33 "Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. " The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:10:31 That really pxss off the Americans who wanted mandatory sex change with the illegals. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 20:42:10 ttt Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:41:24 Hot Rod, I'm honestly curious. Do you think that a lawyer in a certain field knows about every single judicial decision in a state he doesn't practice in? Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:44:29 Why would he? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:47:49 Hell if I know, but you suggested that law experts should know every judicial decision in the history of all 50 states in your OP. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:58:55 No, I did not. Judge Napolitano has a research staff that helps him dig up that kind of stuff when he goes on TV to talk about it. It is his job to either know, or to find out the truth before he reports on it. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:02:26 I don't care what that fat fuck judge thinks. You said that OBAMA should have known about some judicial decision in the state of California. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:14:51 No, I said he should know that depriving illegals of benefits available to everyone else is unconstitutional because he taught Constitutional Law at Columbia University. If you want to go a step farther, the committee that wrote the particular version Obama referred to should have known because they probably have at least 50 law clerks on their staff to do that kind of research. So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law or you have a President who either doesn't know the subject he taught to college law students or he does not know the Bill he is talking about, assuming the committee is on the ball, or you have a President who stood up in front of a Joint Session of Congress and The American People and told a bald faced lie. You figure it out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 22:16:51 Its not lie, because the Law will say Illegals cannot sign up for the Public option. Rod, they already get health care. Federal Law prohibits Emergency Rooms from turning ANYONE away. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:23:19 We are talking about *HEALTH INSURANCE.* If a government run health insurance plan passes in an form, the government will be Constitutionally obligated to make it available to illegal aliens. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:26:05 See Aeros, you are so fucking stupid you can't even stay on subject. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:31:57 "So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law" From your version of events, this particular case only reached the 9th Circuit. Common law precedents formed in one circuit have no explicit precedence in other circuits, so no, this was not the law in New York or any of the states not under the jurisdiction of the 9th. In short, you're either full of shit or, again, you believe that all law experts should be familiar with every single judicial case that has ever taken place in all 50 states. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:45:54 It was heard on appeal and the appeals court upheld the lower court. California appealed to The United States Supreme Court who refuse to hear it. Now I don't know why they refused to hear it, but my guess would be they had already made a similar ruling when they said that illegals were entitled to Social Security. Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:49:05 HR is quite a mind reader. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:50:44 Especially when he declared that no one can show GWB lied because no one can read his mind. Now, HR is claiming he can read BHO's mind. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:52:43 "Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us." I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? I wouldn't blame him; most lawyers and legal experts focus on common law within their own spheres of influence. For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York, instead of somewhere like Alabama or, hell, even California. Opponents of health reform should be focusing on the negatives of the bill. They should not be obsessing over and trying to pick apart every little detail of a speech that in the end was little more than grandstanding. Hrothgar Member Thu Sep 10 22:57:30 There is a time and place to discuss disagreements over what the President has said. During the middle of his speech is not the place. That guy is not a hero. He's a loud mouth and showed a distinct lack of respect for his country's leader. For over 225 years our leaders have managed for the vast majority of the time keep debate and arguments civil. They have understood that the other political party is a fellow American opponent, not an enemy. It will be better off for us all if it stays that way. The outrageous extremists on the left and right need to be slapped down when they start getting out of hand and making thing uncivil. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:30:44 Rugian - I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. Rugian - For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York... LOL, why would someone whose job it is to teach Constitutional Law even consider teaching New York Common Law to their students. I swear you are just as stupid as roland. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:37:17 Ugh, this is headache inducing. Do you even know the most basic concepts of law? From the standpoint of common law interpretations of Constitutional law, you obviously look at USSC rulings first. But then you also look at how lower level courts interpret Constitutional law in the jurisdiction that you're likely to practice law in. This is important because depending on what circuit your area falls under, you can have vastly different common law precedents regarding Constitutional law interpretations in effect. Goddamn, I try to reasonably point something out to you and you make it impossible. You truly are a gifted troll Hot Rod. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:38:48 So basically, if a district or circuit court makes a precedent-establishing ruling on an aspect of Constitutional law in your area and it never reaches the Supreme Court, you need to know about that "local" ruling. Please don't argue against this, it is practically guaranteed to make you look stupid if you do. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:43:39 Taking the New York example, someone going to Columbia and planning to practice or teach Constitutional law in New York would spend a disproportionate amount of time looking at 2nd Circuit cases, in comparison to all other circuits. Get it now? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:49:45 Oh, and just to hammer the point home and to be explicit as possible, 2nd Circuit rulings on cases that related to the application of Constitutional law in a particular matter and that were not reviewed by the Supreme Court are examples of the "common law existing in New York" that are relevant to legal experts of Constitutional law. Good night Rod. When I get up in 7 hours I expect to see that you have accepted this and moved on. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:52:54 Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change. The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and inferior courts. The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one which courts can and do ignore occasionally. In other words, when the Supreme Court decided the case of allowing Social Security to illegal aliens, there was no need to hear further cases concerning benefits for illegals. "The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change." You cannot tell me that Obama is totally unaware of the Supreme Court decision concerning illegals and Social Security. Now, you go research it and if you can prove me wrong, I will certainly listen. Beyond that, I don't give a fuck what you think. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:01:20 The USSC made no decision concerning illegals. You seem to be woefully uneducated about how precedent is set. When the USSC refuses to hear a case, as it did in this instance, it is not saying "we affirm the decision of the lower court and establish binding precedent on all lower courts in the country." It is instead saying "we refuse to either affirm or overturn the decision of the lower court. The lower court's decision is binding precedent within its own jurisdiction but is not binding anywhere else." Please learn the basics of how common law works. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:03:20 In other words, your quote about stare decisis doesn't apply. "Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority)" That's where your example fails. By refusing to hear the case, no decision was made by the USSC. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:07:45 Does it burn you to know that someone a third of your age knows so much more about the system of law that has been used to govern you for the better part of a century than you do? Ninja Member Fri Sep 11 00:57:57 "It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. " Except that if he didn't even hear about it, it isn't a lie because he did not willfully know that it would be overturned (even if you weren't blowing smoke out your ass). How can you be so fucking old yet have no fucking clue about the basics of the court system? Are you senile or just a fucking retard? president bush Member Fri Sep 11 06:00:03 lol Hot Rod Member Fri Sep 11 06:46:23 As usual you fucking liberals don't have the brains to read what I posted so you can go fuck yourselves. I would rather argue with a fucking iron ball, it would be far more intelligent that a stupid assed liberal.
achhnji Member	Fri Sep 11 10:09:29 elcome to the Utopia Forums! The current time is Fri Sep 11 10:08:29 2009 , You have 0 new messages. Chat on the IRC server here Utopia Talk / Politics / Regarding The *HERO* That Shouted "lie" Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:23:22 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us? roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:08:33 "Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. " The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:10:31 That really pxss off the Americans who wanted mandatory sex change with the illegals. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 20:42:10 ttt Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:41:24 Hot Rod, I'm honestly curious. Do you think that a lawyer in a certain field knows about every single judicial decision in a state he doesn't practice in? Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:44:29 Why would he? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:47:49 Hell if I know, but you suggested that law experts should know every judicial decision in the history of all 50 states in your OP. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:58:55 No, I did not. Judge Napolitano has a research staff that helps him dig up that kind of stuff when he goes on TV to talk about it. It is his job to either know, or to find out the truth before he reports on it. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:02:26 I don't care what that fat fuck judge thinks. You said that OBAMA should have known about some judicial decision in the state of California. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:14:51 No, I said he should know that depriving illegals of benefits available to everyone else is unconstitutional because he taught Constitutional Law at Columbia University. If you want to go a step farther, the committee that wrote the particular version Obama referred to should have known because they probably have at least 50 law clerks on their staff to do that kind of research. So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law or you have a President who either doesn't know the subject he taught to college law students or he does not know the Bill he is talking about, assuming the committee is on the ball, or you have a President who stood up in front of a Joint Session of Congress and The American People and told a bald faced lie. You figure it out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 22:16:51 Its not lie, because the Law will say Illegals cannot sign up for the Public option. Rod, they already get health care. Federal Law prohibits Emergency Rooms from turning ANYONE away. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:23:19 We are talking about *HEALTH INSURANCE.* If a government run health insurance plan passes in an form, the government will be Constitutionally obligated to make it available to illegal aliens. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:26:05 See Aeros, you are so fucking stupid you can't even stay on subject. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:31:57 "So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law" From your version of events, this particular case only reached the 9th Circuit. Common law precedents formed in one circuit have no explicit precedence in other circuits, so no, this was not the law in New York or any of the states not under the jurisdiction of the 9th. In short, you're either full of shit or, again, you believe that all law experts should be familiar with every single judicial case that has ever taken place in all 50 states. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:45:54 It was heard on appeal and the appeals court upheld the lower court. California appealed to The United States Supreme Court who refuse to hear it. Now I don't know why they refused to hear it, but my guess would be they had already made a similar ruling when they said that illegals were entitled to Social Security. Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:49:05 HR is quite a mind reader. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:50:44 Especially when he declared that no one can show GWB lied because no one can read his mind. Now, HR is claiming he can read BHO's mind. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:52:43 "Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us." I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? I wouldn't blame him; most lawyers and legal experts focus on common law within their own spheres of influence. For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York, instead of somewhere like Alabama or, hell, even California. Opponents of health reform should be focusing on the negatives of the bill. They should not be obsessing over and trying to pick apart every little detail of a speech that in the end was little more than grandstanding. Hrothgar Member Thu Sep 10 22:57:30 There is a time and place to discuss disagreements over what the President has said. During the middle of his speech is not the place. That guy is not a hero. He's a loud mouth and showed a distinct lack of respect for his country's leader. For over 225 years our leaders have managed for the vast majority of the time keep debate and arguments civil. They have understood that the other political party is a fellow American opponent, not an enemy. It will be better off for us all if it stays that way. The outrageous extremists on the left and right need to be slapped down when they start getting out of hand and making thing uncivil. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:30:44 Rugian - I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. Rugian - For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York... LOL, why would someone whose job it is to teach Constitutional Law even consider teaching New York Common Law to their students. I swear you are just as stupid as roland. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:37:17 Ugh, this is headache inducing. Do you even know the most basic concepts of law? From the standpoint of common law interpretations of Constitutional law, you obviously look at USSC rulings first. But then you also look at how lower level courts interpret Constitutional law in the jurisdiction that you're likely to practice law in. This is important because depending on what circuit your area falls under, you can have vastly different common law precedents regarding Constitutional law interpretations in effect. Goddamn, I try to reasonably point something out to you and you make it impossible. You truly are a gifted troll Hot Rod. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:38:48 So basically, if a district or circuit court makes a precedent-establishing ruling on an aspect of Constitutional law in your area and it never reaches the Supreme Court, you need to know about that "local" ruling. Please don't argue against this, it is practically guaranteed to make you look stupid if you do. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:43:39 Taking the New York example, someone going to Columbia and planning to practice or teach Constitutional law in New York would spend a disproportionate amount of time looking at 2nd Circuit cases, in comparison to all other circuits. Get it now? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:49:45 Oh, and just to hammer the point home and to be explicit as possible, 2nd Circuit rulings on cases that related to the application of Constitutional law in a particular matter and that were not reviewed by the Supreme Court are examples of the "common law existing in New York" that are relevant to legal experts of Constitutional law. Good night Rod. When I get up in 7 hours I expect to see that you have accepted this and moved on. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:52:54 Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change. The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and inferior courts. The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one which courts can and do ignore occasionally. In other words, when the Supreme Court decided the case of allowing Social Security to illegal aliens, there was no need to hear further cases concerning benefits for illegals. "The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change." You cannot tell me that Obama is totally unaware of the Supreme Court decision concerning illegals and Social Security. Now, you go research it and if you can prove me wrong, I will certainly listen. Beyond that, I don't give a fuck what you think. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:01:20 The USSC made no decision concerning illegals. You seem to be woefully uneducated about how precedent is set. When the USSC refuses to hear a case, as it did in this instance, it is not saying "we affirm the decision of the lower court and establish binding precedent on all lower courts in the country." It is instead saying "we refuse to either affirm or overturn the decision of the lower court. The lower court's decision is binding precedent within its own jurisdiction but is not binding anywhere else." Please learn the basics of how common law works. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:03:20 In other words, your quote about stare decisis doesn't apply. "Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority)" That's where your example fails. By refusing to hear the case, no decision was made by the USSC. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:07:45 Does it burn you to know that someone a third of your age knows so much more about the system of law that has been used to govern you for the better part of a century than you do? Ninja Member Fri Sep 11 00:57:57 "It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. " Except that if he didn't even hear about it, it isn't a lie because he did not willfully know that it would be overturned (even if you weren't blowing smoke out your ass). How can you be so fucking old yet have no fucking clue about the basics of the court system? Are you senile or just a fucking retard? president bush Member Fri Sep 11 06:00:03 lol Hot Rod Member Fri Sep 11 06:46:23 As usual you fucking liberals don't have the brains to read what I posted so you can go fuck yourselves. I would rather argue with a fucking iron ball, it would be far more intelligent that a stupid assed liberal.
achhnji Member	Fri Sep 11 10:09:29 elcome to the Utopia Forums! The current time is Fri Sep 11 10:08:29 2009 , You have 0 new messages. Chat on the IRC server here Utopia Talk / Politics / Regarding The *HERO* That Shouted "lie" Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:23:22 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us? roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:08:33 "Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. " The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:10:31 That really pxss off the Americans who wanted mandatory sex change with the illegals. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 20:42:10 ttt Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:41:24 Hot Rod, I'm honestly curious. Do you think that a lawyer in a certain field knows about every single judicial decision in a state he doesn't practice in? Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:44:29 Why would he? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:47:49 Hell if I know, but you suggested that law experts should know every judicial decision in the history of all 50 states in your OP. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:58:55 No, I did not. Judge Napolitano has a research staff that helps him dig up that kind of stuff when he goes on TV to talk about it. It is his job to either know, or to find out the truth before he reports on it. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:02:26 I don't care what that fat fuck judge thinks. You said that OBAMA should have known about some judicial decision in the state of California. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:14:51 No, I said he should know that depriving illegals of benefits available to everyone else is unconstitutional because he taught Constitutional Law at Columbia University. If you want to go a step farther, the committee that wrote the particular version Obama referred to should have known because they probably have at least 50 law clerks on their staff to do that kind of research. So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law or you have a President who either doesn't know the subject he taught to college law students or he does not know the Bill he is talking about, assuming the committee is on the ball, or you have a President who stood up in front of a Joint Session of Congress and The American People and told a bald faced lie. You figure it out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 22:16:51 Its not lie, because the Law will say Illegals cannot sign up for the Public option. Rod, they already get health care. Federal Law prohibits Emergency Rooms from turning ANYONE away. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:23:19 We are talking about *HEALTH INSURANCE.* If a government run health insurance plan passes in an form, the government will be Constitutionally obligated to make it available to illegal aliens. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:26:05 See Aeros, you are so fucking stupid you can't even stay on subject. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:31:57 "So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law" From your version of events, this particular case only reached the 9th Circuit. Common law precedents formed in one circuit have no explicit precedence in other circuits, so no, this was not the law in New York or any of the states not under the jurisdiction of the 9th. In short, you're either full of shit or, again, you believe that all law experts should be familiar with every single judicial case that has ever taken place in all 50 states. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:45:54 It was heard on appeal and the appeals court upheld the lower court. California appealed to The United States Supreme Court who refuse to hear it. Now I don't know why they refused to hear it, but my guess would be they had already made a similar ruling when they said that illegals were entitled to Social Security. Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:49:05 HR is quite a mind reader. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:50:44 Especially when he declared that no one can show GWB lied because no one can read his mind. Now, HR is claiming he can read BHO's mind. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:52:43 "Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us." I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? I wouldn't blame him; most lawyers and legal experts focus on common law within their own spheres of influence. For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York, instead of somewhere like Alabama or, hell, even California. Opponents of health reform should be focusing on the negatives of the bill. They should not be obsessing over and trying to pick apart every little detail of a speech that in the end was little more than grandstanding. Hrothgar Member Thu Sep 10 22:57:30 There is a time and place to discuss disagreements over what the President has said. During the middle of his speech is not the place. That guy is not a hero. He's a loud mouth and showed a distinct lack of respect for his country's leader. For over 225 years our leaders have managed for the vast majority of the time keep debate and arguments civil. They have understood that the other political party is a fellow American opponent, not an enemy. It will be better off for us all if it stays that way. The outrageous extremists on the left and right need to be slapped down when they start getting out of hand and making thing uncivil. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:30:44 Rugian - I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. Rugian - For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York... LOL, why would someone whose job it is to teach Constitutional Law even consider teaching New York Common Law to their students. I swear you are just as stupid as roland. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:37:17 Ugh, this is headache inducing. Do you even know the most basic concepts of law? From the standpoint of common law interpretations of Constitutional law, you obviously look at USSC rulings first. But then you also look at how lower level courts interpret Constitutional law in the jurisdiction that you're likely to practice law in. This is important because depending on what circuit your area falls under, you can have vastly different common law precedents regarding Constitutional law interpretations in effect. Goddamn, I try to reasonably point something out to you and you make it impossible. You truly are a gifted troll Hot Rod. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:38:48 So basically, if a district or circuit court makes a precedent-establishing ruling on an aspect of Constitutional law in your area and it never reaches the Supreme Court, you need to know about that "local" ruling. Please don't argue against this, it is practically guaranteed to make you look stupid if you do. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:43:39 Taking the New York example, someone going to Columbia and planning to practice or teach Constitutional law in New York would spend a disproportionate amount of time looking at 2nd Circuit cases, in comparison to all other circuits. Get it now? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:49:45 Oh, and just to hammer the point home and to be explicit as possible, 2nd Circuit rulings on cases that related to the application of Constitutional law in a particular matter and that were not reviewed by the Supreme Court are examples of the "common law existing in New York" that are relevant to legal experts of Constitutional law. Good night Rod. When I get up in 7 hours I expect to see that you have accepted this and moved on. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:52:54 Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change. The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and inferior courts. The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one which courts can and do ignore occasionally. In other words, when the Supreme Court decided the case of allowing Social Security to illegal aliens, there was no need to hear further cases concerning benefits for illegals. "The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change." You cannot tell me that Obama is totally unaware of the Supreme Court decision concerning illegals and Social Security. Now, you go research it and if you can prove me wrong, I will certainly listen. Beyond that, I don't give a fuck what you think. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:01:20 The USSC made no decision concerning illegals. You seem to be woefully uneducated about how precedent is set. When the USSC refuses to hear a case, as it did in this instance, it is not saying "we affirm the decision of the lower court and establish binding precedent on all lower courts in the country." It is instead saying "we refuse to either affirm or overturn the decision of the lower court. The lower court's decision is binding precedent within its own jurisdiction but is not binding anywhere else." Please learn the basics of how common law works. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:03:20 In other words, your quote about stare decisis doesn't apply. "Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority)" That's where your example fails. By refusing to hear the case, no decision was made by the USSC. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:07:45 Does it burn you to know that someone a third of your age knows so much more about the system of law that has been used to govern you for the better part of a century than you do? Ninja Member Fri Sep 11 00:57:57 "It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. " Except that if he didn't even hear about it, it isn't a lie because he did not willfully know that it would be overturned (even if you weren't blowing smoke out your ass). How can you be so fucking old yet have no fucking clue about the basics of the court system? Are you senile or just a fucking retard? president bush Member Fri Sep 11 06:00:03 lol Hot Rod Member Fri Sep 11 06:46:23 As usual you fucking liberals don't have the brains to read what I posted so you can go fuck yourselves. I would rather argue with a fucking iron ball, it would be far more intelligent that a stupid assed liberal.
achhnji Member	Fri Sep 11 10:09:30 elcome to the Utopia Forums! The current time is Fri Sep 11 10:08:29 2009 , You have 0 new messages. Chat on the IRC server here Utopia Talk / Politics / Regarding The *HERO* That Shouted "lie" Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:23:22 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us? roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:08:33 "Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. " The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:10:31 That really pxss off the Americans who wanted mandatory sex change with the illegals. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 20:42:10 ttt Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:41:24 Hot Rod, I'm honestly curious. Do you think that a lawyer in a certain field knows about every single judicial decision in a state he doesn't practice in? Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:44:29 Why would he? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:47:49 Hell if I know, but you suggested that law experts should know every judicial decision in the history of all 50 states in your OP. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:58:55 No, I did not. Judge Napolitano has a research staff that helps him dig up that kind of stuff when he goes on TV to talk about it. It is his job to either know, or to find out the truth before he reports on it. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:02:26 I don't care what that fat fuck judge thinks. You said that OBAMA should have known about some judicial decision in the state of California. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:14:51 No, I said he should know that depriving illegals of benefits available to everyone else is unconstitutional because he taught Constitutional Law at Columbia University. If you want to go a step farther, the committee that wrote the particular version Obama referred to should have known because they probably have at least 50 law clerks on their staff to do that kind of research. So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law or you have a President who either doesn't know the subject he taught to college law students or he does not know the Bill he is talking about, assuming the committee is on the ball, or you have a President who stood up in front of a Joint Session of Congress and The American People and told a bald faced lie. You figure it out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 22:16:51 Its not lie, because the Law will say Illegals cannot sign up for the Public option. Rod, they already get health care. Federal Law prohibits Emergency Rooms from turning ANYONE away. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:23:19 We are talking about *HEALTH INSURANCE.* If a government run health insurance plan passes in an form, the government will be Constitutionally obligated to make it available to illegal aliens. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:26:05 See Aeros, you are so fucking stupid you can't even stay on subject. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:31:57 "So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law" From your version of events, this particular case only reached the 9th Circuit. Common law precedents formed in one circuit have no explicit precedence in other circuits, so no, this was not the law in New York or any of the states not under the jurisdiction of the 9th. In short, you're either full of shit or, again, you believe that all law experts should be familiar with every single judicial case that has ever taken place in all 50 states. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:45:54 It was heard on appeal and the appeals court upheld the lower court. California appealed to The United States Supreme Court who refuse to hear it. Now I don't know why they refused to hear it, but my guess would be they had already made a similar ruling when they said that illegals were entitled to Social Security. Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:49:05 HR is quite a mind reader. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:50:44 Especially when he declared that no one can show GWB lied because no one can read his mind. Now, HR is claiming he can read BHO's mind. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:52:43 "Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us." I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? I wouldn't blame him; most lawyers and legal experts focus on common law within their own spheres of influence. For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York, instead of somewhere like Alabama or, hell, even California. Opponents of health reform should be focusing on the negatives of the bill. They should not be obsessing over and trying to pick apart every little detail of a speech that in the end was little more than grandstanding. Hrothgar Member Thu Sep 10 22:57:30 There is a time and place to discuss disagreements over what the President has said. During the middle of his speech is not the place. That guy is not a hero. He's a loud mouth and showed a distinct lack of respect for his country's leader. For over 225 years our leaders have managed for the vast majority of the time keep debate and arguments civil. They have understood that the other political party is a fellow American opponent, not an enemy. It will be better off for us all if it stays that way. The outrageous extremists on the left and right need to be slapped down when they start getting out of hand and making thing uncivil. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:30:44 Rugian - I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. Rugian - For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York... LOL, why would someone whose job it is to teach Constitutional Law even consider teaching New York Common Law to their students. I swear you are just as stupid as roland. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:37:17 Ugh, this is headache inducing. Do you even know the most basic concepts of law? From the standpoint of common law interpretations of Constitutional law, you obviously look at USSC rulings first. But then you also look at how lower level courts interpret Constitutional law in the jurisdiction that you're likely to practice law in. This is important because depending on what circuit your area falls under, you can have vastly different common law precedents regarding Constitutional law interpretations in effect. Goddamn, I try to reasonably point something out to you and you make it impossible. You truly are a gifted troll Hot Rod. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:38:48 So basically, if a district or circuit court makes a precedent-establishing ruling on an aspect of Constitutional law in your area and it never reaches the Supreme Court, you need to know about that "local" ruling. Please don't argue against this, it is practically guaranteed to make you look stupid if you do. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:43:39 Taking the New York example, someone going to Columbia and planning to practice or teach Constitutional law in New York would spend a disproportionate amount of time looking at 2nd Circuit cases, in comparison to all other circuits. Get it now? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:49:45 Oh, and just to hammer the point home and to be explicit as possible, 2nd Circuit rulings on cases that related to the application of Constitutional law in a particular matter and that were not reviewed by the Supreme Court are examples of the "common law existing in New York" that are relevant to legal experts of Constitutional law. Good night Rod. When I get up in 7 hours I expect to see that you have accepted this and moved on. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:52:54 Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change. The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and inferior courts. The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one which courts can and do ignore occasionally. In other words, when the Supreme Court decided the case of allowing Social Security to illegal aliens, there was no need to hear further cases concerning benefits for illegals. "The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change." You cannot tell me that Obama is totally unaware of the Supreme Court decision concerning illegals and Social Security. Now, you go research it and if you can prove me wrong, I will certainly listen. Beyond that, I don't give a fuck what you think. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:01:20 The USSC made no decision concerning illegals. You seem to be woefully uneducated about how precedent is set. When the USSC refuses to hear a case, as it did in this instance, it is not saying "we affirm the decision of the lower court and establish binding precedent on all lower courts in the country." It is instead saying "we refuse to either affirm or overturn the decision of the lower court. The lower court's decision is binding precedent within its own jurisdiction but is not binding anywhere else." Please learn the basics of how common law works. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:03:20 In other words, your quote about stare decisis doesn't apply. "Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority)" That's where your example fails. By refusing to hear the case, no decision was made by the USSC. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:07:45 Does it burn you to know that someone a third of your age knows so much more about the system of law that has been used to govern you for the better part of a century than you do? Ninja Member Fri Sep 11 00:57:57 "It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. " Except that if he didn't even hear about it, it isn't a lie because he did not willfully know that it would be overturned (even if you weren't blowing smoke out your ass). How can you be so fucking old yet have no fucking clue about the basics of the court system? Are you senile or just a fucking retard? president bush Member Fri Sep 11 06:00:03 lol Hot Rod Member Fri Sep 11 06:46:23 As usual you fucking liberals don't have the brains to read what I posted so you can go fuck yourselves. I would rather argue with a fucking iron ball, it would be far more intelligent that a stupid assed liberal.
achhnji Member	Fri Sep 11 10:09:30 elcome to the Utopia Forums! The current time is Fri Sep 11 10:08:29 2009 , You have 0 new messages. Chat on the IRC server here Utopia Talk / Politics / Regarding The *HERO* That Shouted "lie" Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:23:22 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us? roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:08:33 "Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. " The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:10:31 That really pxss off the Americans who wanted mandatory sex change with the illegals. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 20:42:10 ttt Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:41:24 Hot Rod, I'm honestly curious. Do you think that a lawyer in a certain field knows about every single judicial decision in a state he doesn't practice in? Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:44:29 Why would he? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:47:49 Hell if I know, but you suggested that law experts should know every judicial decision in the history of all 50 states in your OP. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:58:55 No, I did not. Judge Napolitano has a research staff that helps him dig up that kind of stuff when he goes on TV to talk about it. It is his job to either know, or to find out the truth before he reports on it. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:02:26 I don't care what that fat fuck judge thinks. You said that OBAMA should have known about some judicial decision in the state of California. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:14:51 No, I said he should know that depriving illegals of benefits available to everyone else is unconstitutional because he taught Constitutional Law at Columbia University. If you want to go a step farther, the committee that wrote the particular version Obama referred to should have known because they probably have at least 50 law clerks on their staff to do that kind of research. So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law or you have a President who either doesn't know the subject he taught to college law students or he does not know the Bill he is talking about, assuming the committee is on the ball, or you have a President who stood up in front of a Joint Session of Congress and The American People and told a bald faced lie. You figure it out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 22:16:51 Its not lie, because the Law will say Illegals cannot sign up for the Public option. Rod, they already get health care. Federal Law prohibits Emergency Rooms from turning ANYONE away. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:23:19 We are talking about *HEALTH INSURANCE.* If a government run health insurance plan passes in an form, the government will be Constitutionally obligated to make it available to illegal aliens. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:26:05 See Aeros, you are so fucking stupid you can't even stay on subject. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:31:57 "So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law" From your version of events, this particular case only reached the 9th Circuit. Common law precedents formed in one circuit have no explicit precedence in other circuits, so no, this was not the law in New York or any of the states not under the jurisdiction of the 9th. In short, you're either full of shit or, again, you believe that all law experts should be familiar with every single judicial case that has ever taken place in all 50 states. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:45:54 It was heard on appeal and the appeals court upheld the lower court. California appealed to The United States Supreme Court who refuse to hear it. Now I don't know why they refused to hear it, but my guess would be they had already made a similar ruling when they said that illegals were entitled to Social Security. Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:49:05 HR is quite a mind reader. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:50:44 Especially when he declared that no one can show GWB lied because no one can read his mind. Now, HR is claiming he can read BHO's mind. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:52:43 "Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us." I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? I wouldn't blame him; most lawyers and legal experts focus on common law within their own spheres of influence. For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York, instead of somewhere like Alabama or, hell, even California. Opponents of health reform should be focusing on the negatives of the bill. They should not be obsessing over and trying to pick apart every little detail of a speech that in the end was little more than grandstanding. Hrothgar Member Thu Sep 10 22:57:30 There is a time and place to discuss disagreements over what the President has said. During the middle of his speech is not the place. That guy is not a hero. He's a loud mouth and showed a distinct lack of respect for his country's leader. For over 225 years our leaders have managed for the vast majority of the time keep debate and arguments civil. They have understood that the other political party is a fellow American opponent, not an enemy. It will be better off for us all if it stays that way. The outrageous extremists on the left and right need to be slapped down when they start getting out of hand and making thing uncivil. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:30:44 Rugian - I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. Rugian - For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York... LOL, why would someone whose job it is to teach Constitutional Law even consider teaching New York Common Law to their students. I swear you are just as stupid as roland. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:37:17 Ugh, this is headache inducing. Do you even know the most basic concepts of law? From the standpoint of common law interpretations of Constitutional law, you obviously look at USSC rulings first. But then you also look at how lower level courts interpret Constitutional law in the jurisdiction that you're likely to practice law in. This is important because depending on what circuit your area falls under, you can have vastly different common law precedents regarding Constitutional law interpretations in effect. Goddamn, I try to reasonably point something out to you and you make it impossible. You truly are a gifted troll Hot Rod. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:38:48 So basically, if a district or circuit court makes a precedent-establishing ruling on an aspect of Constitutional law in your area and it never reaches the Supreme Court, you need to know about that "local" ruling. Please don't argue against this, it is practically guaranteed to make you look stupid if you do. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:43:39 Taking the New York example, someone going to Columbia and planning to practice or teach Constitutional law in New York would spend a disproportionate amount of time looking at 2nd Circuit cases, in comparison to all other circuits. Get it now? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:49:45 Oh, and just to hammer the point home and to be explicit as possible, 2nd Circuit rulings on cases that related to the application of Constitutional law in a particular matter and that were not reviewed by the Supreme Court are examples of the "common law existing in New York" that are relevant to legal experts of Constitutional law. Good night Rod. When I get up in 7 hours I expect to see that you have accepted this and moved on. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:52:54 Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change. The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and inferior courts. The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one which courts can and do ignore occasionally. In other words, when the Supreme Court decided the case of allowing Social Security to illegal aliens, there was no need to hear further cases concerning benefits for illegals. "The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change." You cannot tell me that Obama is totally unaware of the Supreme Court decision concerning illegals and Social Security. Now, you go research it and if you can prove me wrong, I will certainly listen. Beyond that, I don't give a fuck what you think. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:01:20 The USSC made no decision concerning illegals. You seem to be woefully uneducated about how precedent is set. When the USSC refuses to hear a case, as it did in this instance, it is not saying "we affirm the decision of the lower court and establish binding precedent on all lower courts in the country." It is instead saying "we refuse to either affirm or overturn the decision of the lower court. The lower court's decision is binding precedent within its own jurisdiction but is not binding anywhere else." Please learn the basics of how common law works. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:03:20 In other words, your quote about stare decisis doesn't apply. "Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority)" That's where your example fails. By refusing to hear the case, no decision was made by the USSC. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:07:45 Does it burn you to know that someone a third of your age knows so much more about the system of law that has been used to govern you for the better part of a century than you do? Ninja Member Fri Sep 11 00:57:57 "It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. " Except that if he didn't even hear about it, it isn't a lie because he did not willfully know that it would be overturned (even if you weren't blowing smoke out your ass). How can you be so fucking old yet have no fucking clue about the basics of the court system? Are you senile or just a fucking retard? president bush Member Fri Sep 11 06:00:03 lol Hot Rod Member Fri Sep 11 06:46:23 As usual you fucking liberals don't have the brains to read what I posted so you can go fuck yourselves. I would rather argue with a fucking iron ball, it would be far more intelligent that a stupid assed liberal.
achhnji Member	Fri Sep 11 10:09:30 elcome to the Utopia Forums! The current time is Fri Sep 11 10:08:29 2009 , You have 0 new messages. Chat on the IRC server here Utopia Talk / Politics / Regarding The *HERO* That Shouted "lie" Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:23:22 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us? roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:08:33 "Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. " The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:10:31 That really pxss off the Americans who wanted mandatory sex change with the illegals. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 20:42:10 ttt Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:41:24 Hot Rod, I'm honestly curious. Do you think that a lawyer in a certain field knows about every single judicial decision in a state he doesn't practice in? Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:44:29 Why would he? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:47:49 Hell if I know, but you suggested that law experts should know every judicial decision in the history of all 50 states in your OP. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:58:55 No, I did not. Judge Napolitano has a research staff that helps him dig up that kind of stuff when he goes on TV to talk about it. It is his job to either know, or to find out the truth before he reports on it. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:02:26 I don't care what that fat fuck judge thinks. You said that OBAMA should have known about some judicial decision in the state of California. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:14:51 No, I said he should know that depriving illegals of benefits available to everyone else is unconstitutional because he taught Constitutional Law at Columbia University. If you want to go a step farther, the committee that wrote the particular version Obama referred to should have known because they probably have at least 50 law clerks on their staff to do that kind of research. So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law or you have a President who either doesn't know the subject he taught to college law students or he does not know the Bill he is talking about, assuming the committee is on the ball, or you have a President who stood up in front of a Joint Session of Congress and The American People and told a bald faced lie. You figure it out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 22:16:51 Its not lie, because the Law will say Illegals cannot sign up for the Public option. Rod, they already get health care. Federal Law prohibits Emergency Rooms from turning ANYONE away. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:23:19 We are talking about *HEALTH INSURANCE.* If a government run health insurance plan passes in an form, the government will be Constitutionally obligated to make it available to illegal aliens. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:26:05 See Aeros, you are so fucking stupid you can't even stay on subject. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:31:57 "So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law" From your version of events, this particular case only reached the 9th Circuit. Common law precedents formed in one circuit have no explicit precedence in other circuits, so no, this was not the law in New York or any of the states not under the jurisdiction of the 9th. In short, you're either full of shit or, again, you believe that all law experts should be familiar with every single judicial case that has ever taken place in all 50 states. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:45:54 It was heard on appeal and the appeals court upheld the lower court. California appealed to The United States Supreme Court who refuse to hear it. Now I don't know why they refused to hear it, but my guess would be they had already made a similar ruling when they said that illegals were entitled to Social Security. Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:49:05 HR is quite a mind reader. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:50:44 Especially when he declared that no one can show GWB lied because no one can read his mind. Now, HR is claiming he can read BHO's mind. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:52:43 "Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us." I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? I wouldn't blame him; most lawyers and legal experts focus on common law within their own spheres of influence. For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York, instead of somewhere like Alabama or, hell, even California. Opponents of health reform should be focusing on the negatives of the bill. They should not be obsessing over and trying to pick apart every little detail of a speech that in the end was little more than grandstanding. Hrothgar Member Thu Sep 10 22:57:30 There is a time and place to discuss disagreements over what the President has said. During the middle of his speech is not the place. That guy is not a hero. He's a loud mouth and showed a distinct lack of respect for his country's leader. For over 225 years our leaders have managed for the vast majority of the time keep debate and arguments civil. They have understood that the other political party is a fellow American opponent, not an enemy. It will be better off for us all if it stays that way. The outrageous extremists on the left and right need to be slapped down when they start getting out of hand and making thing uncivil. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:30:44 Rugian - I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. Rugian - For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York... LOL, why would someone whose job it is to teach Constitutional Law even consider teaching New York Common Law to their students. I swear you are just as stupid as roland. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:37:17 Ugh, this is headache inducing. Do you even know the most basic concepts of law? From the standpoint of common law interpretations of Constitutional law, you obviously look at USSC rulings first. But then you also look at how lower level courts interpret Constitutional law in the jurisdiction that you're likely to practice law in. This is important because depending on what circuit your area falls under, you can have vastly different common law precedents regarding Constitutional law interpretations in effect. Goddamn, I try to reasonably point something out to you and you make it impossible. You truly are a gifted troll Hot Rod. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:38:48 So basically, if a district or circuit court makes a precedent-establishing ruling on an aspect of Constitutional law in your area and it never reaches the Supreme Court, you need to know about that "local" ruling. Please don't argue against this, it is practically guaranteed to make you look stupid if you do. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:43:39 Taking the New York example, someone going to Columbia and planning to practice or teach Constitutional law in New York would spend a disproportionate amount of time looking at 2nd Circuit cases, in comparison to all other circuits. Get it now? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:49:45 Oh, and just to hammer the point home and to be explicit as possible, 2nd Circuit rulings on cases that related to the application of Constitutional law in a particular matter and that were not reviewed by the Supreme Court are examples of the "common law existing in New York" that are relevant to legal experts of Constitutional law. Good night Rod. When I get up in 7 hours I expect to see that you have accepted this and moved on. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:52:54 Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change. The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and inferior courts. The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one which courts can and do ignore occasionally. In other words, when the Supreme Court decided the case of allowing Social Security to illegal aliens, there was no need to hear further cases concerning benefits for illegals. "The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change." You cannot tell me that Obama is totally unaware of the Supreme Court decision concerning illegals and Social Security. Now, you go research it and if you can prove me wrong, I will certainly listen. Beyond that, I don't give a fuck what you think. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:01:20 The USSC made no decision concerning illegals. You seem to be woefully uneducated about how precedent is set. When the USSC refuses to hear a case, as it did in this instance, it is not saying "we affirm the decision of the lower court and establish binding precedent on all lower courts in the country." It is instead saying "we refuse to either affirm or overturn the decision of the lower court. The lower court's decision is binding precedent within its own jurisdiction but is not binding anywhere else." Please learn the basics of how common law works. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:03:20 In other words, your quote about stare decisis doesn't apply. "Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority)" That's where your example fails. By refusing to hear the case, no decision was made by the USSC. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:07:45 Does it burn you to know that someone a third of your age knows so much more about the system of law that has been used to govern you for the better part of a century than you do? Ninja Member Fri Sep 11 00:57:57 "It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. " Except that if he didn't even hear about it, it isn't a lie because he did not willfully know that it would be overturned (even if you weren't blowing smoke out your ass). How can you be so fucking old yet have no fucking clue about the basics of the court system? Are you senile or just a fucking retard? president bush Member Fri Sep 11 06:00:03 lol Hot Rod Member Fri Sep 11 06:46:23 As usual you fucking liberals don't have the brains to read what I posted so you can go fuck yourselves. I would rather argue with a fucking iron ball, it would be far more intelligent that a stupid assed liberal.
achhnji Member	Fri Sep 11 10:09:30 elcome to the Utopia Forums! The current time is Fri Sep 11 10:08:29 2009 , You have 0 new messages. Chat on the IRC server here Utopia Talk / Politics / Regarding The *HERO* That Shouted "lie" Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:23:22 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us? roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:08:33 "Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. " The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:10:31 That really pxss off the Americans who wanted mandatory sex change with the illegals. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 20:42:10 ttt Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:41:24 Hot Rod, I'm honestly curious. Do you think that a lawyer in a certain field knows about every single judicial decision in a state he doesn't practice in? Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:44:29 Why would he? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:47:49 Hell if I know, but you suggested that law experts should know every judicial decision in the history of all 50 states in your OP. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:58:55 No, I did not. Judge Napolitano has a research staff that helps him dig up that kind of stuff when he goes on TV to talk about it. It is his job to either know, or to find out the truth before he reports on it. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:02:26 I don't care what that fat fuck judge thinks. You said that OBAMA should have known about some judicial decision in the state of California. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:14:51 No, I said he should know that depriving illegals of benefits available to everyone else is unconstitutional because he taught Constitutional Law at Columbia University. If you want to go a step farther, the committee that wrote the particular version Obama referred to should have known because they probably have at least 50 law clerks on their staff to do that kind of research. So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law or you have a President who either doesn't know the subject he taught to college law students or he does not know the Bill he is talking about, assuming the committee is on the ball, or you have a President who stood up in front of a Joint Session of Congress and The American People and told a bald faced lie. You figure it out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 22:16:51 Its not lie, because the Law will say Illegals cannot sign up for the Public option. Rod, they already get health care. Federal Law prohibits Emergency Rooms from turning ANYONE away. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:23:19 We are talking about *HEALTH INSURANCE.* If a government run health insurance plan passes in an form, the government will be Constitutionally obligated to make it available to illegal aliens. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:26:05 See Aeros, you are so fucking stupid you can't even stay on subject. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:31:57 "So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law" From your version of events, this particular case only reached the 9th Circuit. Common law precedents formed in one circuit have no explicit precedence in other circuits, so no, this was not the law in New York or any of the states not under the jurisdiction of the 9th. In short, you're either full of shit or, again, you believe that all law experts should be familiar with every single judicial case that has ever taken place in all 50 states. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:45:54 It was heard on appeal and the appeals court upheld the lower court. California appealed to The United States Supreme Court who refuse to hear it. Now I don't know why they refused to hear it, but my guess would be they had already made a similar ruling when they said that illegals were entitled to Social Security. Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:49:05 HR is quite a mind reader. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:50:44 Especially when he declared that no one can show GWB lied because no one can read his mind. Now, HR is claiming he can read BHO's mind. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:52:43 "Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us." I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? I wouldn't blame him; most lawyers and legal experts focus on common law within their own spheres of influence. For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York, instead of somewhere like Alabama or, hell, even California. Opponents of health reform should be focusing on the negatives of the bill. They should not be obsessing over and trying to pick apart every little detail of a speech that in the end was little more than grandstanding. Hrothgar Member Thu Sep 10 22:57:30 There is a time and place to discuss disagreements over what the President has said. During the middle of his speech is not the place. That guy is not a hero. He's a loud mouth and showed a distinct lack of respect for his country's leader. For over 225 years our leaders have managed for the vast majority of the time keep debate and arguments civil. They have understood that the other political party is a fellow American opponent, not an enemy. It will be better off for us all if it stays that way. The outrageous extremists on the left and right need to be slapped down when they start getting out of hand and making thing uncivil. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:30:44 Rugian - I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. Rugian - For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York... LOL, why would someone whose job it is to teach Constitutional Law even consider teaching New York Common Law to their students. I swear you are just as stupid as roland. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:37:17 Ugh, this is headache inducing. Do you even know the most basic concepts of law? From the standpoint of common law interpretations of Constitutional law, you obviously look at USSC rulings first. But then you also look at how lower level courts interpret Constitutional law in the jurisdiction that you're likely to practice law in. This is important because depending on what circuit your area falls under, you can have vastly different common law precedents regarding Constitutional law interpretations in effect. Goddamn, I try to reasonably point something out to you and you make it impossible. You truly are a gifted troll Hot Rod. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:38:48 So basically, if a district or circuit court makes a precedent-establishing ruling on an aspect of Constitutional law in your area and it never reaches the Supreme Court, you need to know about that "local" ruling. Please don't argue against this, it is practically guaranteed to make you look stupid if you do. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:43:39 Taking the New York example, someone going to Columbia and planning to practice or teach Constitutional law in New York would spend a disproportionate amount of time looking at 2nd Circuit cases, in comparison to all other circuits. Get it now? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:49:45 Oh, and just to hammer the point home and to be explicit as possible, 2nd Circuit rulings on cases that related to the application of Constitutional law in a particular matter and that were not reviewed by the Supreme Court are examples of the "common law existing in New York" that are relevant to legal experts of Constitutional law. Good night Rod. When I get up in 7 hours I expect to see that you have accepted this and moved on. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:52:54 Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change. The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and inferior courts. The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one which courts can and do ignore occasionally. In other words, when the Supreme Court decided the case of allowing Social Security to illegal aliens, there was no need to hear further cases concerning benefits for illegals. "The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change." You cannot tell me that Obama is totally unaware of the Supreme Court decision concerning illegals and Social Security. Now, you go research it and if you can prove me wrong, I will certainly listen. Beyond that, I don't give a fuck what you think. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:01:20 The USSC made no decision concerning illegals. You seem to be woefully uneducated about how precedent is set. When the USSC refuses to hear a case, as it did in this instance, it is not saying "we affirm the decision of the lower court and establish binding precedent on all lower courts in the country." It is instead saying "we refuse to either affirm or overturn the decision of the lower court. The lower court's decision is binding precedent within its own jurisdiction but is not binding anywhere else." Please learn the basics of how common law works. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:03:20 In other words, your quote about stare decisis doesn't apply. "Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority)" That's where your example fails. By refusing to hear the case, no decision was made by the USSC. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:07:45 Does it burn you to know that someone a third of your age knows so much more about the system of law that has been used to govern you for the better part of a century than you do? Ninja Member Fri Sep 11 00:57:57 "It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. " Except that if he didn't even hear about it, it isn't a lie because he did not willfully know that it would be overturned (even if you weren't blowing smoke out your ass). How can you be so fucking old yet have no fucking clue about the basics of the court system? Are you senile or just a fucking retard? president bush Member Fri Sep 11 06:00:03 lol Hot Rod Member Fri Sep 11 06:46:23 As usual you fucking liberals don't have the brains to read what I posted so you can go fuck yourselves. I would rather argue with a fucking iron ball, it would be far more intelligent that a stupid assed liberal.
achhnji Member	Fri Sep 11 10:09:30 elcome to the Utopia Forums! The current time is Fri Sep 11 10:08:29 2009 , You have 0 new messages. Chat on the IRC server here Utopia Talk / Politics / Regarding The *HERO* That Shouted "lie" Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:23:22 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us? roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:08:33 "Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. " The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:10:31 That really pxss off the Americans who wanted mandatory sex change with the illegals. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 20:42:10 ttt Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:41:24 Hot Rod, I'm honestly curious. Do you think that a lawyer in a certain field knows about every single judicial decision in a state he doesn't practice in? Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:44:29 Why would he? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:47:49 Hell if I know, but you suggested that law experts should know every judicial decision in the history of all 50 states in your OP. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:58:55 No, I did not. Judge Napolitano has a research staff that helps him dig up that kind of stuff when he goes on TV to talk about it. It is his job to either know, or to find out the truth before he reports on it. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:02:26 I don't care what that fat fuck judge thinks. You said that OBAMA should have known about some judicial decision in the state of California. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:14:51 No, I said he should know that depriving illegals of benefits available to everyone else is unconstitutional because he taught Constitutional Law at Columbia University. If you want to go a step farther, the committee that wrote the particular version Obama referred to should have known because they probably have at least 50 law clerks on their staff to do that kind of research. So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law or you have a President who either doesn't know the subject he taught to college law students or he does not know the Bill he is talking about, assuming the committee is on the ball, or you have a President who stood up in front of a Joint Session of Congress and The American People and told a bald faced lie. You figure it out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 22:16:51 Its not lie, because the Law will say Illegals cannot sign up for the Public option. Rod, they already get health care. Federal Law prohibits Emergency Rooms from turning ANYONE away. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:23:19 We are talking about *HEALTH INSURANCE.* If a government run health insurance plan passes in an form, the government will be Constitutionally obligated to make it available to illegal aliens. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:26:05 See Aeros, you are so fucking stupid you can't even stay on subject. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:31:57 "So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law" From your version of events, this particular case only reached the 9th Circuit. Common law precedents formed in one circuit have no explicit precedence in other circuits, so no, this was not the law in New York or any of the states not under the jurisdiction of the 9th. In short, you're either full of shit or, again, you believe that all law experts should be familiar with every single judicial case that has ever taken place in all 50 states. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:45:54 It was heard on appeal and the appeals court upheld the lower court. California appealed to The United States Supreme Court who refuse to hear it. Now I don't know why they refused to hear it, but my guess would be they had already made a similar ruling when they said that illegals were entitled to Social Security. Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:49:05 HR is quite a mind reader. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:50:44 Especially when he declared that no one can show GWB lied because no one can read his mind. Now, HR is claiming he can read BHO's mind. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:52:43 "Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us." I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? I wouldn't blame him; most lawyers and legal experts focus on common law within their own spheres of influence. For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York, instead of somewhere like Alabama or, hell, even California. Opponents of health reform should be focusing on the negatives of the bill. They should not be obsessing over and trying to pick apart every little detail of a speech that in the end was little more than grandstanding. Hrothgar Member Thu Sep 10 22:57:30 There is a time and place to discuss disagreements over what the President has said. During the middle of his speech is not the place. That guy is not a hero. He's a loud mouth and showed a distinct lack of respect for his country's leader. For over 225 years our leaders have managed for the vast majority of the time keep debate and arguments civil. They have understood that the other political party is a fellow American opponent, not an enemy. It will be better off for us all if it stays that way. The outrageous extremists on the left and right need to be slapped down when they start getting out of hand and making thing uncivil. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:30:44 Rugian - I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. Rugian - For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York... LOL, why would someone whose job it is to teach Constitutional Law even consider teaching New York Common Law to their students. I swear you are just as stupid as roland. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:37:17 Ugh, this is headache inducing. Do you even know the most basic concepts of law? From the standpoint of common law interpretations of Constitutional law, you obviously look at USSC rulings first. But then you also look at how lower level courts interpret Constitutional law in the jurisdiction that you're likely to practice law in. This is important because depending on what circuit your area falls under, you can have vastly different common law precedents regarding Constitutional law interpretations in effect. Goddamn, I try to reasonably point something out to you and you make it impossible. You truly are a gifted troll Hot Rod. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:38:48 So basically, if a district or circuit court makes a precedent-establishing ruling on an aspect of Constitutional law in your area and it never reaches the Supreme Court, you need to know about that "local" ruling. Please don't argue against this, it is practically guaranteed to make you look stupid if you do. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:43:39 Taking the New York example, someone going to Columbia and planning to practice or teach Constitutional law in New York would spend a disproportionate amount of time looking at 2nd Circuit cases, in comparison to all other circuits. Get it now? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:49:45 Oh, and just to hammer the point home and to be explicit as possible, 2nd Circuit rulings on cases that related to the application of Constitutional law in a particular matter and that were not reviewed by the Supreme Court are examples of the "common law existing in New York" that are relevant to legal experts of Constitutional law. Good night Rod. When I get up in 7 hours I expect to see that you have accepted this and moved on. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:52:54 Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change. The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and inferior courts. The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one which courts can and do ignore occasionally. In other words, when the Supreme Court decided the case of allowing Social Security to illegal aliens, there was no need to hear further cases concerning benefits for illegals. "The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change." You cannot tell me that Obama is totally unaware of the Supreme Court decision concerning illegals and Social Security. Now, you go research it and if you can prove me wrong, I will certainly listen. Beyond that, I don't give a fuck what you think. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:01:20 The USSC made no decision concerning illegals. You seem to be woefully uneducated about how precedent is set. When the USSC refuses to hear a case, as it did in this instance, it is not saying "we affirm the decision of the lower court and establish binding precedent on all lower courts in the country." It is instead saying "we refuse to either affirm or overturn the decision of the lower court. The lower court's decision is binding precedent within its own jurisdiction but is not binding anywhere else." Please learn the basics of how common law works. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:03:20 In other words, your quote about stare decisis doesn't apply. "Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority)" That's where your example fails. By refusing to hear the case, no decision was made by the USSC. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:07:45 Does it burn you to know that someone a third of your age knows so much more about the system of law that has been used to govern you for the better part of a century than you do? Ninja Member Fri Sep 11 00:57:57 "It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. " Except that if he didn't even hear about it, it isn't a lie because he did not willfully know that it would be overturned (even if you weren't blowing smoke out your ass). How can you be so fucking old yet have no fucking clue about the basics of the court system? Are you senile or just a fucking retard? president bush Member Fri Sep 11 06:00:03 lol Hot Rod Member Fri Sep 11 06:46:23 As usual you fucking liberals don't have the brains to read what I posted so you can go fuck yourselves. I would rather argue with a fucking iron ball, it would be far more intelligent that a stupid assed liberal.
achhnji Member	Fri Sep 11 10:09:31 elcome to the Utopia Forums! The current time is Fri Sep 11 10:08:29 2009 , You have 0 new messages. Chat on the IRC server here Utopia Talk / Politics / Regarding The *HERO* That Shouted "lie" Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:23:22 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us? roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:08:33 "Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. " The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:10:31 That really pxss off the Americans who wanted mandatory sex change with the illegals. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 20:42:10 ttt Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:41:24 Hot Rod, I'm honestly curious. Do you think that a lawyer in a certain field knows about every single judicial decision in a state he doesn't practice in? Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:44:29 Why would he? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:47:49 Hell if I know, but you suggested that law experts should know every judicial decision in the history of all 50 states in your OP. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:58:55 No, I did not. Judge Napolitano has a research staff that helps him dig up that kind of stuff when he goes on TV to talk about it. It is his job to either know, or to find out the truth before he reports on it. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:02:26 I don't care what that fat fuck judge thinks. You said that OBAMA should have known about some judicial decision in the state of California. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:14:51 No, I said he should know that depriving illegals of benefits available to everyone else is unconstitutional because he taught Constitutional Law at Columbia University. If you want to go a step farther, the committee that wrote the particular version Obama referred to should have known because they probably have at least 50 law clerks on their staff to do that kind of research. So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law or you have a President who either doesn't know the subject he taught to college law students or he does not know the Bill he is talking about, assuming the committee is on the ball, or you have a President who stood up in front of a Joint Session of Congress and The American People and told a bald faced lie. You figure it out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 22:16:51 Its not lie, because the Law will say Illegals cannot sign up for the Public option. Rod, they already get health care. Federal Law prohibits Emergency Rooms from turning ANYONE away. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:23:19 We are talking about *HEALTH INSURANCE.* If a government run health insurance plan passes in an form, the government will be Constitutionally obligated to make it available to illegal aliens. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:26:05 See Aeros, you are so fucking stupid you can't even stay on subject. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:31:57 "So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law" From your version of events, this particular case only reached the 9th Circuit. Common law precedents formed in one circuit have no explicit precedence in other circuits, so no, this was not the law in New York or any of the states not under the jurisdiction of the 9th. In short, you're either full of shit or, again, you believe that all law experts should be familiar with every single judicial case that has ever taken place in all 50 states. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:45:54 It was heard on appeal and the appeals court upheld the lower court. California appealed to The United States Supreme Court who refuse to hear it. Now I don't know why they refused to hear it, but my guess would be they had already made a similar ruling when they said that illegals were entitled to Social Security. Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:49:05 HR is quite a mind reader. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:50:44 Especially when he declared that no one can show GWB lied because no one can read his mind. Now, HR is claiming he can read BHO's mind. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:52:43 "Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us." I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? I wouldn't blame him; most lawyers and legal experts focus on common law within their own spheres of influence. For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York, instead of somewhere like Alabama or, hell, even California. Opponents of health reform should be focusing on the negatives of the bill. They should not be obsessing over and trying to pick apart every little detail of a speech that in the end was little more than grandstanding. Hrothgar Member Thu Sep 10 22:57:30 There is a time and place to discuss disagreements over what the President has said. During the middle of his speech is not the place. That guy is not a hero. He's a loud mouth and showed a distinct lack of respect for his country's leader. For over 225 years our leaders have managed for the vast majority of the time keep debate and arguments civil. They have understood that the other political party is a fellow American opponent, not an enemy. It will be better off for us all if it stays that way. The outrageous extremists on the left and right need to be slapped down when they start getting out of hand and making thing uncivil. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:30:44 Rugian - I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. Rugian - For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York... LOL, why would someone whose job it is to teach Constitutional Law even consider teaching New York Common Law to their students. I swear you are just as stupid as roland. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:37:17 Ugh, this is headache inducing. Do you even know the most basic concepts of law? From the standpoint of common law interpretations of Constitutional law, you obviously look at USSC rulings first. But then you also look at how lower level courts interpret Constitutional law in the jurisdiction that you're likely to practice law in. This is important because depending on what circuit your area falls under, you can have vastly different common law precedents regarding Constitutional law interpretations in effect. Goddamn, I try to reasonably point something out to you and you make it impossible. You truly are a gifted troll Hot Rod. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:38:48 So basically, if a district or circuit court makes a precedent-establishing ruling on an aspect of Constitutional law in your area and it never reaches the Supreme Court, you need to know about that "local" ruling. Please don't argue against this, it is practically guaranteed to make you look stupid if you do. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:43:39 Taking the New York example, someone going to Columbia and planning to practice or teach Constitutional law in New York would spend a disproportionate amount of time looking at 2nd Circuit cases, in comparison to all other circuits. Get it now? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:49:45 Oh, and just to hammer the point home and to be explicit as possible, 2nd Circuit rulings on cases that related to the application of Constitutional law in a particular matter and that were not reviewed by the Supreme Court are examples of the "common law existing in New York" that are relevant to legal experts of Constitutional law. Good night Rod. When I get up in 7 hours I expect to see that you have accepted this and moved on. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:52:54 Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change. The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and inferior courts. The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one which courts can and do ignore occasionally. In other words, when the Supreme Court decided the case of allowing Social Security to illegal aliens, there was no need to hear further cases concerning benefits for illegals. "The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change." You cannot tell me that Obama is totally unaware of the Supreme Court decision concerning illegals and Social Security. Now, you go research it and if you can prove me wrong, I will certainly listen. Beyond that, I don't give a fuck what you think. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:01:20 The USSC made no decision concerning illegals. You seem to be woefully uneducated about how precedent is set. When the USSC refuses to hear a case, as it did in this instance, it is not saying "we affirm the decision of the lower court and establish binding precedent on all lower courts in the country." It is instead saying "we refuse to either affirm or overturn the decision of the lower court. The lower court's decision is binding precedent within its own jurisdiction but is not binding anywhere else." Please learn the basics of how common law works. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:03:20 In other words, your quote about stare decisis doesn't apply. "Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority)" That's where your example fails. By refusing to hear the case, no decision was made by the USSC. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:07:45 Does it burn you to know that someone a third of your age knows so much more about the system of law that has been used to govern you for the better part of a century than you do? Ninja Member Fri Sep 11 00:57:57 "It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. " Except that if he didn't even hear about it, it isn't a lie because he did not willfully know that it would be overturned (even if you weren't blowing smoke out your ass). How can you be so fucking old yet have no fucking clue about the basics of the court system? Are you senile or just a fucking retard? president bush Member Fri Sep 11 06:00:03 lol Hot Rod Member Fri Sep 11 06:46:23 As usual you fucking liberals don't have the brains to read what I posted so you can go fuck yourselves. I would rather argue with a fucking iron ball, it would be far more intelligent that a stupid assed liberal.
achhnji Member	Fri Sep 11 10:09:31 elcome to the Utopia Forums! The current time is Fri Sep 11 10:08:29 2009 , You have 0 new messages. Chat on the IRC server here Utopia Talk / Politics / Regarding The *HERO* That Shouted "lie" Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:23:22 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us? roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:08:33 "Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. " The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:10:31 That really pxss off the Americans who wanted mandatory sex change with the illegals. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 20:42:10 ttt Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:41:24 Hot Rod, I'm honestly curious. Do you think that a lawyer in a certain field knows about every single judicial decision in a state he doesn't practice in? Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:44:29 Why would he? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:47:49 Hell if I know, but you suggested that law experts should know every judicial decision in the history of all 50 states in your OP. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:58:55 No, I did not. Judge Napolitano has a research staff that helps him dig up that kind of stuff when he goes on TV to talk about it. It is his job to either know, or to find out the truth before he reports on it. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:02:26 I don't care what that fat fuck judge thinks. You said that OBAMA should have known about some judicial decision in the state of California. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:14:51 No, I said he should know that depriving illegals of benefits available to everyone else is unconstitutional because he taught Constitutional Law at Columbia University. If you want to go a step farther, the committee that wrote the particular version Obama referred to should have known because they probably have at least 50 law clerks on their staff to do that kind of research. So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law or you have a President who either doesn't know the subject he taught to college law students or he does not know the Bill he is talking about, assuming the committee is on the ball, or you have a President who stood up in front of a Joint Session of Congress and The American People and told a bald faced lie. You figure it out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 22:16:51 Its not lie, because the Law will say Illegals cannot sign up for the Public option. Rod, they already get health care. Federal Law prohibits Emergency Rooms from turning ANYONE away. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:23:19 We are talking about *HEALTH INSURANCE.* If a government run health insurance plan passes in an form, the government will be Constitutionally obligated to make it available to illegal aliens. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:26:05 See Aeros, you are so fucking stupid you can't even stay on subject. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:31:57 "So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law" From your version of events, this particular case only reached the 9th Circuit. Common law precedents formed in one circuit have no explicit precedence in other circuits, so no, this was not the law in New York or any of the states not under the jurisdiction of the 9th. In short, you're either full of shit or, again, you believe that all law experts should be familiar with every single judicial case that has ever taken place in all 50 states. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:45:54 It was heard on appeal and the appeals court upheld the lower court. California appealed to The United States Supreme Court who refuse to hear it. Now I don't know why they refused to hear it, but my guess would be they had already made a similar ruling when they said that illegals were entitled to Social Security. Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:49:05 HR is quite a mind reader. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:50:44 Especially when he declared that no one can show GWB lied because no one can read his mind. Now, HR is claiming he can read BHO's mind. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:52:43 "Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us." I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? I wouldn't blame him; most lawyers and legal experts focus on common law within their own spheres of influence. For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York, instead of somewhere like Alabama or, hell, even California. Opponents of health reform should be focusing on the negatives of the bill. They should not be obsessing over and trying to pick apart every little detail of a speech that in the end was little more than grandstanding. Hrothgar Member Thu Sep 10 22:57:30 There is a time and place to discuss disagreements over what the President has said. During the middle of his speech is not the place. That guy is not a hero. He's a loud mouth and showed a distinct lack of respect for his country's leader. For over 225 years our leaders have managed for the vast majority of the time keep debate and arguments civil. They have understood that the other political party is a fellow American opponent, not an enemy. It will be better off for us all if it stays that way. The outrageous extremists on the left and right need to be slapped down when they start getting out of hand and making thing uncivil. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:30:44 Rugian - I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. Rugian - For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York... LOL, why would someone whose job it is to teach Constitutional Law even consider teaching New York Common Law to their students. I swear you are just as stupid as roland. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:37:17 Ugh, this is headache inducing. Do you even know the most basic concepts of law? From the standpoint of common law interpretations of Constitutional law, you obviously look at USSC rulings first. But then you also look at how lower level courts interpret Constitutional law in the jurisdiction that you're likely to practice law in. This is important because depending on what circuit your area falls under, you can have vastly different common law precedents regarding Constitutional law interpretations in effect. Goddamn, I try to reasonably point something out to you and you make it impossible. You truly are a gifted troll Hot Rod. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:38:48 So basically, if a district or circuit court makes a precedent-establishing ruling on an aspect of Constitutional law in your area and it never reaches the Supreme Court, you need to know about that "local" ruling. Please don't argue against this, it is practically guaranteed to make you look stupid if you do. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:43:39 Taking the New York example, someone going to Columbia and planning to practice or teach Constitutional law in New York would spend a disproportionate amount of time looking at 2nd Circuit cases, in comparison to all other circuits. Get it now? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:49:45 Oh, and just to hammer the point home and to be explicit as possible, 2nd Circuit rulings on cases that related to the application of Constitutional law in a particular matter and that were not reviewed by the Supreme Court are examples of the "common law existing in New York" that are relevant to legal experts of Constitutional law. Good night Rod. When I get up in 7 hours I expect to see that you have accepted this and moved on. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:52:54 Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change. The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and inferior courts. The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one which courts can and do ignore occasionally. In other words, when the Supreme Court decided the case of allowing Social Security to illegal aliens, there was no need to hear further cases concerning benefits for illegals. "The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change." You cannot tell me that Obama is totally unaware of the Supreme Court decision concerning illegals and Social Security. Now, you go research it and if you can prove me wrong, I will certainly listen. Beyond that, I don't give a fuck what you think. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:01:20 The USSC made no decision concerning illegals. You seem to be woefully uneducated about how precedent is set. When the USSC refuses to hear a case, as it did in this instance, it is not saying "we affirm the decision of the lower court and establish binding precedent on all lower courts in the country." It is instead saying "we refuse to either affirm or overturn the decision of the lower court. The lower court's decision is binding precedent within its own jurisdiction but is not binding anywhere else." Please learn the basics of how common law works. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:03:20 In other words, your quote about stare decisis doesn't apply. "Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority)" That's where your example fails. By refusing to hear the case, no decision was made by the USSC. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:07:45 Does it burn you to know that someone a third of your age knows so much more about the system of law that has been used to govern you for the better part of a century than you do? Ninja Member Fri Sep 11 00:57:57 "It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. " Except that if he didn't even hear about it, it isn't a lie because he did not willfully know that it would be overturned (even if you weren't blowing smoke out your ass). How can you be so fucking old yet have no fucking clue about the basics of the court system? Are you senile or just a fucking retard? president bush Member Fri Sep 11 06:00:03 lol Hot Rod Member Fri Sep 11 06:46:23 As usual you fucking liberals don't have the brains to read what I posted so you can go fuck yourselves. I would rather argue with a fucking iron ball, it would be far more intelligent that a stupid assed liberal.
achhnji Member	Fri Sep 11 10:09:31 elcome to the Utopia Forums! The current time is Fri Sep 11 10:08:29 2009 , You have 0 new messages. Chat on the IRC server here Utopia Talk / Politics / Regarding The *HERO* That Shouted "lie" Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:23:22 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us? roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:08:33 "Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. " The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:10:31 That really pxss off the Americans who wanted mandatory sex change with the illegals. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 20:42:10 ttt Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:41:24 Hot Rod, I'm honestly curious. Do you think that a lawyer in a certain field knows about every single judicial decision in a state he doesn't practice in? Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:44:29 Why would he? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:47:49 Hell if I know, but you suggested that law experts should know every judicial decision in the history of all 50 states in your OP. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:58:55 No, I did not. Judge Napolitano has a research staff that helps him dig up that kind of stuff when he goes on TV to talk about it. It is his job to either know, or to find out the truth before he reports on it. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:02:26 I don't care what that fat fuck judge thinks. You said that OBAMA should have known about some judicial decision in the state of California. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:14:51 No, I said he should know that depriving illegals of benefits available to everyone else is unconstitutional because he taught Constitutional Law at Columbia University. If you want to go a step farther, the committee that wrote the particular version Obama referred to should have known because they probably have at least 50 law clerks on their staff to do that kind of research. So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law or you have a President who either doesn't know the subject he taught to college law students or he does not know the Bill he is talking about, assuming the committee is on the ball, or you have a President who stood up in front of a Joint Session of Congress and The American People and told a bald faced lie. You figure it out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 22:16:51 Its not lie, because the Law will say Illegals cannot sign up for the Public option. Rod, they already get health care. Federal Law prohibits Emergency Rooms from turning ANYONE away. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:23:19 We are talking about *HEALTH INSURANCE.* If a government run health insurance plan passes in an form, the government will be Constitutionally obligated to make it available to illegal aliens. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:26:05 See Aeros, you are so fucking stupid you can't even stay on subject. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:31:57 "So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law" From your version of events, this particular case only reached the 9th Circuit. Common law precedents formed in one circuit have no explicit precedence in other circuits, so no, this was not the law in New York or any of the states not under the jurisdiction of the 9th. In short, you're either full of shit or, again, you believe that all law experts should be familiar with every single judicial case that has ever taken place in all 50 states. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:45:54 It was heard on appeal and the appeals court upheld the lower court. California appealed to The United States Supreme Court who refuse to hear it. Now I don't know why they refused to hear it, but my guess would be they had already made a similar ruling when they said that illegals were entitled to Social Security. Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:49:05 HR is quite a mind reader. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:50:44 Especially when he declared that no one can show GWB lied because no one can read his mind. Now, HR is claiming he can read BHO's mind. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:52:43 "Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us." I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? I wouldn't blame him; most lawyers and legal experts focus on common law within their own spheres of influence. For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York, instead of somewhere like Alabama or, hell, even California. Opponents of health reform should be focusing on the negatives of the bill. They should not be obsessing over and trying to pick apart every little detail of a speech that in the end was little more than grandstanding. Hrothgar Member Thu Sep 10 22:57:30 There is a time and place to discuss disagreements over what the President has said. During the middle of his speech is not the place. That guy is not a hero. He's a loud mouth and showed a distinct lack of respect for his country's leader. For over 225 years our leaders have managed for the vast majority of the time keep debate and arguments civil. They have understood that the other political party is a fellow American opponent, not an enemy. It will be better off for us all if it stays that way. The outrageous extremists on the left and right need to be slapped down when they start getting out of hand and making thing uncivil. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:30:44 Rugian - I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. Rugian - For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York... LOL, why would someone whose job it is to teach Constitutional Law even consider teaching New York Common Law to their students. I swear you are just as stupid as roland. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:37:17 Ugh, this is headache inducing. Do you even know the most basic concepts of law? From the standpoint of common law interpretations of Constitutional law, you obviously look at USSC rulings first. But then you also look at how lower level courts interpret Constitutional law in the jurisdiction that you're likely to practice law in. This is important because depending on what circuit your area falls under, you can have vastly different common law precedents regarding Constitutional law interpretations in effect. Goddamn, I try to reasonably point something out to you and you make it impossible. You truly are a gifted troll Hot Rod. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:38:48 So basically, if a district or circuit court makes a precedent-establishing ruling on an aspect of Constitutional law in your area and it never reaches the Supreme Court, you need to know about that "local" ruling. Please don't argue against this, it is practically guaranteed to make you look stupid if you do. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:43:39 Taking the New York example, someone going to Columbia and planning to practice or teach Constitutional law in New York would spend a disproportionate amount of time looking at 2nd Circuit cases, in comparison to all other circuits. Get it now? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:49:45 Oh, and just to hammer the point home and to be explicit as possible, 2nd Circuit rulings on cases that related to the application of Constitutional law in a particular matter and that were not reviewed by the Supreme Court are examples of the "common law existing in New York" that are relevant to legal experts of Constitutional law. Good night Rod. When I get up in 7 hours I expect to see that you have accepted this and moved on. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:52:54 Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change. The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and inferior courts. The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one which courts can and do ignore occasionally. In other words, when the Supreme Court decided the case of allowing Social Security to illegal aliens, there was no need to hear further cases concerning benefits for illegals. "The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change." You cannot tell me that Obama is totally unaware of the Supreme Court decision concerning illegals and Social Security. Now, you go research it and if you can prove me wrong, I will certainly listen. Beyond that, I don't give a fuck what you think. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:01:20 The USSC made no decision concerning illegals. You seem to be woefully uneducated about how precedent is set. When the USSC refuses to hear a case, as it did in this instance, it is not saying "we affirm the decision of the lower court and establish binding precedent on all lower courts in the country." It is instead saying "we refuse to either affirm or overturn the decision of the lower court. The lower court's decision is binding precedent within its own jurisdiction but is not binding anywhere else." Please learn the basics of how common law works. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:03:20 In other words, your quote about stare decisis doesn't apply. "Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority)" That's where your example fails. By refusing to hear the case, no decision was made by the USSC. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:07:45 Does it burn you to know that someone a third of your age knows so much more about the system of law that has been used to govern you for the better part of a century than you do? Ninja Member Fri Sep 11 00:57:57 "It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. " Except that if he didn't even hear about it, it isn't a lie because he did not willfully know that it would be overturned (even if you weren't blowing smoke out your ass). How can you be so fucking old yet have no fucking clue about the basics of the court system? Are you senile or just a fucking retard? president bush Member Fri Sep 11 06:00:03 lol Hot Rod Member Fri Sep 11 06:46:23 As usual you fucking liberals don't have the brains to read what I posted so you can go fuck yourselves. I would rather argue with a fucking iron ball, it would be far more intelligent that a stupid assed liberal.
achhnji Member	Fri Sep 11 10:09:32 elcome to the Utopia Forums! The current time is Fri Sep 11 10:08:29 2009 , You have 0 new messages. Chat on the IRC server here Utopia Talk / Politics / Regarding The *HERO* That Shouted "lie" Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:23:22 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us? roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:08:33 "Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. " The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:10:31 That really pxss off the Americans who wanted mandatory sex change with the illegals. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 20:42:10 ttt Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:41:24 Hot Rod, I'm honestly curious. Do you think that a lawyer in a certain field knows about every single judicial decision in a state he doesn't practice in? Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:44:29 Why would he? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:47:49 Hell if I know, but you suggested that law experts should know every judicial decision in the history of all 50 states in your OP. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:58:55 No, I did not. Judge Napolitano has a research staff that helps him dig up that kind of stuff when he goes on TV to talk about it. It is his job to either know, or to find out the truth before he reports on it. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:02:26 I don't care what that fat fuck judge thinks. You said that OBAMA should have known about some judicial decision in the state of California. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:14:51 No, I said he should know that depriving illegals of benefits available to everyone else is unconstitutional because he taught Constitutional Law at Columbia University. If you want to go a step farther, the committee that wrote the particular version Obama referred to should have known because they probably have at least 50 law clerks on their staff to do that kind of research. So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law or you have a President who either doesn't know the subject he taught to college law students or he does not know the Bill he is talking about, assuming the committee is on the ball, or you have a President who stood up in front of a Joint Session of Congress and The American People and told a bald faced lie. You figure it out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 22:16:51 Its not lie, because the Law will say Illegals cannot sign up for the Public option. Rod, they already get health care. Federal Law prohibits Emergency Rooms from turning ANYONE away. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:23:19 We are talking about *HEALTH INSURANCE.* If a government run health insurance plan passes in an form, the government will be Constitutionally obligated to make it available to illegal aliens. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:26:05 See Aeros, you are so fucking stupid you can't even stay on subject. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:31:57 "So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law" From your version of events, this particular case only reached the 9th Circuit. Common law precedents formed in one circuit have no explicit precedence in other circuits, so no, this was not the law in New York or any of the states not under the jurisdiction of the 9th. In short, you're either full of shit or, again, you believe that all law experts should be familiar with every single judicial case that has ever taken place in all 50 states. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:45:54 It was heard on appeal and the appeals court upheld the lower court. California appealed to The United States Supreme Court who refuse to hear it. Now I don't know why they refused to hear it, but my guess would be they had already made a similar ruling when they said that illegals were entitled to Social Security. Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:49:05 HR is quite a mind reader. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:50:44 Especially when he declared that no one can show GWB lied because no one can read his mind. Now, HR is claiming he can read BHO's mind. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:52:43 "Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us." I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? I wouldn't blame him; most lawyers and legal experts focus on common law within their own spheres of influence. For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York, instead of somewhere like Alabama or, hell, even California. Opponents of health reform should be focusing on the negatives of the bill. They should not be obsessing over and trying to pick apart every little detail of a speech that in the end was little more than grandstanding. Hrothgar Member Thu Sep 10 22:57:30 There is a time and place to discuss disagreements over what the President has said. During the middle of his speech is not the place. That guy is not a hero. He's a loud mouth and showed a distinct lack of respect for his country's leader. For over 225 years our leaders have managed for the vast majority of the time keep debate and arguments civil. They have understood that the other political party is a fellow American opponent, not an enemy. It will be better off for us all if it stays that way. The outrageous extremists on the left and right need to be slapped down when they start getting out of hand and making thing uncivil. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:30:44 Rugian - I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. Rugian - For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York... LOL, why would someone whose job it is to teach Constitutional Law even consider teaching New York Common Law to their students. I swear you are just as stupid as roland. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:37:17 Ugh, this is headache inducing. Do you even know the most basic concepts of law? From the standpoint of common law interpretations of Constitutional law, you obviously look at USSC rulings first. But then you also look at how lower level courts interpret Constitutional law in the jurisdiction that you're likely to practice law in. This is important because depending on what circuit your area falls under, you can have vastly different common law precedents regarding Constitutional law interpretations in effect. Goddamn, I try to reasonably point something out to you and you make it impossible. You truly are a gifted troll Hot Rod. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:38:48 So basically, if a district or circuit court makes a precedent-establishing ruling on an aspect of Constitutional law in your area and it never reaches the Supreme Court, you need to know about that "local" ruling. Please don't argue against this, it is practically guaranteed to make you look stupid if you do. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:43:39 Taking the New York example, someone going to Columbia and planning to practice or teach Constitutional law in New York would spend a disproportionate amount of time looking at 2nd Circuit cases, in comparison to all other circuits. Get it now? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:49:45 Oh, and just to hammer the point home and to be explicit as possible, 2nd Circuit rulings on cases that related to the application of Constitutional law in a particular matter and that were not reviewed by the Supreme Court are examples of the "common law existing in New York" that are relevant to legal experts of Constitutional law. Good night Rod. When I get up in 7 hours I expect to see that you have accepted this and moved on. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:52:54 Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change. The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and inferior courts. The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one which courts can and do ignore occasionally. In other words, when the Supreme Court decided the case of allowing Social Security to illegal aliens, there was no need to hear further cases concerning benefits for illegals. "The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change." You cannot tell me that Obama is totally unaware of the Supreme Court decision concerning illegals and Social Security. Now, you go research it and if you can prove me wrong, I will certainly listen. Beyond that, I don't give a fuck what you think. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:01:20 The USSC made no decision concerning illegals. You seem to be woefully uneducated about how precedent is set. When the USSC refuses to hear a case, as it did in this instance, it is not saying "we affirm the decision of the lower court and establish binding precedent on all lower courts in the country." It is instead saying "we refuse to either affirm or overturn the decision of the lower court. The lower court's decision is binding precedent within its own jurisdiction but is not binding anywhere else." Please learn the basics of how common law works. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:03:20 In other words, your quote about stare decisis doesn't apply. "Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority)" That's where your example fails. By refusing to hear the case, no decision was made by the USSC. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:07:45 Does it burn you to know that someone a third of your age knows so much more about the system of law that has been used to govern you for the better part of a century than you do? Ninja Member Fri Sep 11 00:57:57 "It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. " Except that if he didn't even hear about it, it isn't a lie because he did not willfully know that it would be overturned (even if you weren't blowing smoke out your ass). How can you be so fucking old yet have no fucking clue about the basics of the court system? Are you senile or just a fucking retard? president bush Member Fri Sep 11 06:00:03 lol Hot Rod Member Fri Sep 11 06:46:23 As usual you fucking liberals don't have the brains to read what I posted so you can go fuck yourselves. I would rather argue with a fucking iron ball, it would be far more intelligent that a stupid assed liberal.
achhnji Member	Fri Sep 11 10:09:32 elcome to the Utopia Forums! The current time is Fri Sep 11 10:08:29 2009 , You have 0 new messages. Chat on the IRC server here Utopia Talk / Politics / Regarding The *HERO* That Shouted "lie" Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:23:22 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us? roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:08:33 "Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. " The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:10:31 That really pxss off the Americans who wanted mandatory sex change with the illegals. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 20:42:10 ttt Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:41:24 Hot Rod, I'm honestly curious. Do you think that a lawyer in a certain field knows about every single judicial decision in a state he doesn't practice in? Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:44:29 Why would he? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:47:49 Hell if I know, but you suggested that law experts should know every judicial decision in the history of all 50 states in your OP. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:58:55 No, I did not. Judge Napolitano has a research staff that helps him dig up that kind of stuff when he goes on TV to talk about it. It is his job to either know, or to find out the truth before he reports on it. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:02:26 I don't care what that fat fuck judge thinks. You said that OBAMA should have known about some judicial decision in the state of California. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:14:51 No, I said he should know that depriving illegals of benefits available to everyone else is unconstitutional because he taught Constitutional Law at Columbia University. If you want to go a step farther, the committee that wrote the particular version Obama referred to should have known because they probably have at least 50 law clerks on their staff to do that kind of research. So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law or you have a President who either doesn't know the subject he taught to college law students or he does not know the Bill he is talking about, assuming the committee is on the ball, or you have a President who stood up in front of a Joint Session of Congress and The American People and told a bald faced lie. You figure it out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 22:16:51 Its not lie, because the Law will say Illegals cannot sign up for the Public option. Rod, they already get health care. Federal Law prohibits Emergency Rooms from turning ANYONE away. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:23:19 We are talking about *HEALTH INSURANCE.* If a government run health insurance plan passes in an form, the government will be Constitutionally obligated to make it available to illegal aliens. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:26:05 See Aeros, you are so fucking stupid you can't even stay on subject. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:31:57 "So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law" From your version of events, this particular case only reached the 9th Circuit. Common law precedents formed in one circuit have no explicit precedence in other circuits, so no, this was not the law in New York or any of the states not under the jurisdiction of the 9th. In short, you're either full of shit or, again, you believe that all law experts should be familiar with every single judicial case that has ever taken place in all 50 states. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:45:54 It was heard on appeal and the appeals court upheld the lower court. California appealed to The United States Supreme Court who refuse to hear it. Now I don't know why they refused to hear it, but my guess would be they had already made a similar ruling when they said that illegals were entitled to Social Security. Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:49:05 HR is quite a mind reader. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:50:44 Especially when he declared that no one can show GWB lied because no one can read his mind. Now, HR is claiming he can read BHO's mind. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:52:43 "Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us." I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? I wouldn't blame him; most lawyers and legal experts focus on common law within their own spheres of influence. For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York, instead of somewhere like Alabama or, hell, even California. Opponents of health reform should be focusing on the negatives of the bill. They should not be obsessing over and trying to pick apart every little detail of a speech that in the end was little more than grandstanding. Hrothgar Member Thu Sep 10 22:57:30 There is a time and place to discuss disagreements over what the President has said. During the middle of his speech is not the place. That guy is not a hero. He's a loud mouth and showed a distinct lack of respect for his country's leader. For over 225 years our leaders have managed for the vast majority of the time keep debate and arguments civil. They have understood that the other political party is a fellow American opponent, not an enemy. It will be better off for us all if it stays that way. The outrageous extremists on the left and right need to be slapped down when they start getting out of hand and making thing uncivil. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:30:44 Rugian - I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. Rugian - For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York... LOL, why would someone whose job it is to teach Constitutional Law even consider teaching New York Common Law to their students. I swear you are just as stupid as roland. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:37:17 Ugh, this is headache inducing. Do you even know the most basic concepts of law? From the standpoint of common law interpretations of Constitutional law, you obviously look at USSC rulings first. But then you also look at how lower level courts interpret Constitutional law in the jurisdiction that you're likely to practice law in. This is important because depending on what circuit your area falls under, you can have vastly different common law precedents regarding Constitutional law interpretations in effect. Goddamn, I try to reasonably point something out to you and you make it impossible. You truly are a gifted troll Hot Rod. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:38:48 So basically, if a district or circuit court makes a precedent-establishing ruling on an aspect of Constitutional law in your area and it never reaches the Supreme Court, you need to know about that "local" ruling. Please don't argue against this, it is practically guaranteed to make you look stupid if you do. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:43:39 Taking the New York example, someone going to Columbia and planning to practice or teach Constitutional law in New York would spend a disproportionate amount of time looking at 2nd Circuit cases, in comparison to all other circuits. Get it now? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:49:45 Oh, and just to hammer the point home and to be explicit as possible, 2nd Circuit rulings on cases that related to the application of Constitutional law in a particular matter and that were not reviewed by the Supreme Court are examples of the "common law existing in New York" that are relevant to legal experts of Constitutional law. Good night Rod. When I get up in 7 hours I expect to see that you have accepted this and moved on. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:52:54 Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change. The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and inferior courts. The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one which courts can and do ignore occasionally. In other words, when the Supreme Court decided the case of allowing Social Security to illegal aliens, there was no need to hear further cases concerning benefits for illegals. "The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change." You cannot tell me that Obama is totally unaware of the Supreme Court decision concerning illegals and Social Security. Now, you go research it and if you can prove me wrong, I will certainly listen. Beyond that, I don't give a fuck what you think. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:01:20 The USSC made no decision concerning illegals. You seem to be woefully uneducated about how precedent is set. When the USSC refuses to hear a case, as it did in this instance, it is not saying "we affirm the decision of the lower court and establish binding precedent on all lower courts in the country." It is instead saying "we refuse to either affirm or overturn the decision of the lower court. The lower court's decision is binding precedent within its own jurisdiction but is not binding anywhere else." Please learn the basics of how common law works. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:03:20 In other words, your quote about stare decisis doesn't apply. "Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority)" That's where your example fails. By refusing to hear the case, no decision was made by the USSC. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:07:45 Does it burn you to know that someone a third of your age knows so much more about the system of law that has been used to govern you for the better part of a century than you do? Ninja Member Fri Sep 11 00:57:57 "It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. " Except that if he didn't even hear about it, it isn't a lie because he did not willfully know that it would be overturned (even if you weren't blowing smoke out your ass). How can you be so fucking old yet have no fucking clue about the basics of the court system? Are you senile or just a fucking retard? president bush Member Fri Sep 11 06:00:03 lol Hot Rod Member Fri Sep 11 06:46:23 As usual you fucking liberals don't have the brains to read what I posted so you can go fuck yourselves. I would rather argue with a fucking iron ball, it would be far more intelligent that a stupid assed liberal.
achhnji Member	Fri Sep 11 10:09:32 elcome to the Utopia Forums! The current time is Fri Sep 11 10:08:29 2009 , You have 0 new messages. Chat on the IRC server here Utopia Talk / Politics / Regarding The *HERO* That Shouted "lie" Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:23:22 Regarding the *HERO* that shouted "lie" Just heard Judge Napalitano's analysis of Obama's statement last night. The one where Obama clearly stated, "illegal aliens will *NOT* be covered under this health plan." It turns out that California had this issue before the public and, as I understood him, the public passed the law. Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case. OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. So Rep. Joe Wilson is indeed a *HERO* for standing up for the *TRUTH.* Judge Andrew P. Napolitano graduated from Princeton University in 1972 and the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1975. He is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. For eleven years, Judge Napolitano was an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall Law School, where he taught constitutional law and jurisprudence and was voted most outstanding professor in three different academic years. He has been the Senior Judicial Analyst for the Fox News Channel since 1998. He broadcasts nationwide on Fox every weekday on The Big Story; he co-hosts Fox & Friends; he is a regular on The Oâ??Reilly Factor; and he co-hosts Brian and the Judge, heard daily nationwide on Fox Talk Radio. Judge Napolitano also lectures nationally and has been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the New York Sun, the Baltimore Sun, the (New London) Day, the Seton Hall Law Review, the New Jersey Law Journal, and the Newark Star-Ledger. http://www.judgenap.com/judge.shtml PhunkyPhishStyle Member Thu Sep 10 16:29:39 "OBAMA TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER." - Not really. Some people are scholars of the Constitution and use their expertise to abuse and neglect it. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 16:34:52 Point taken. saiko Member Thu Sep 10 16:45:09 You are a caricature of yourself. Spam Detector 3000 Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:37 http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4622/sealz.gif Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 16:46:53 "Of course it was challenged in court. Both the lower court and the appeals court said it was unconstitutional for the government to offer a benefit to it's citizens and deny it to *ALL* who reside in The United States, including illegal aliens. " could you please post which law it was or what the name of the court challenge was so we can look it up? Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:03 Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:00:15 If I can find it I will, but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. kargen Member Thu Sep 10 17:04:41 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/ Might be that. It was California proposition 187. I think there was also a more recent one. Anyway it was in the news just recently. Randal Graves Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:25 :shakes head: Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:09:42 "Is it in the bill. No? Then STFU. Its not Obama's fault the 9th circuit are fundie lefties. The Supreme court rarely interferes with internal state matters." That circuit court decision would affect quite a bit more than just California, and until it were overturned, the states in the Circuit's jurisdiction, and indeed other states(after courts base partly base their decisions on previous cases) would be forced to adhere to the Court's interpretation, not just what Congress puts out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 17:11:07 It was a state law. The Federal Law supersedes it unless another lawsuit is brought to call the question. Forwyn Member Thu Sep 10 17:23:22 What is being superseded though? Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. Ninja Member Thu Sep 10 17:25:53 Doubt that's it kargen or it would mean HR's judge would be way off base. "In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. " "but I have no doubt the judge told the truth. " HR, whether it is true or not is rather irrelevant as people would have to believe your summation which even you said "as I understood him" (hint, you're a moron we want to make up our own minds) Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 17:33:50 What minds would that be? Have you been holding out on us? roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:08:33 "Unless the text specifically denies health insurance being given to illegals, its the same principle. " The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. roland Member Thu Sep 10 19:10:31 That really pxss off the Americans who wanted mandatory sex change with the illegals. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 20:42:10 ttt Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:41:24 Hot Rod, I'm honestly curious. Do you think that a lawyer in a certain field knows about every single judicial decision in a state he doesn't practice in? Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:44:29 Why would he? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 21:47:49 Hell if I know, but you suggested that law experts should know every judicial decision in the history of all 50 states in your OP. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 21:58:55 No, I did not. Judge Napolitano has a research staff that helps him dig up that kind of stuff when he goes on TV to talk about it. It is his job to either know, or to find out the truth before he reports on it. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:02:26 I don't care what that fat fuck judge thinks. You said that OBAMA should have known about some judicial decision in the state of California. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:14:51 No, I said he should know that depriving illegals of benefits available to everyone else is unconstitutional because he taught Constitutional Law at Columbia University. If you want to go a step farther, the committee that wrote the particular version Obama referred to should have known because they probably have at least 50 law clerks on their staff to do that kind of research. So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law or you have a President who either doesn't know the subject he taught to college law students or he does not know the Bill he is talking about, assuming the committee is on the ball, or you have a President who stood up in front of a Joint Session of Congress and The American People and told a bald faced lie. You figure it out. Aeros Member Thu Sep 10 22:16:51 Its not lie, because the Law will say Illegals cannot sign up for the Public option. Rod, they already get health care. Federal Law prohibits Emergency Rooms from turning ANYONE away. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:23:19 We are talking about *HEALTH INSURANCE.* If a government run health insurance plan passes in an form, the government will be Constitutionally obligated to make it available to illegal aliens. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:26:05 See Aeros, you are so fucking stupid you can't even stay on subject. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:31:57 "So what you have is a committee of Law Writers that doesn't know the law" From your version of events, this particular case only reached the 9th Circuit. Common law precedents formed in one circuit have no explicit precedence in other circuits, so no, this was not the law in New York or any of the states not under the jurisdiction of the 9th. In short, you're either full of shit or, again, you believe that all law experts should be familiar with every single judicial case that has ever taken place in all 50 states. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 22:45:54 It was heard on appeal and the appeals court upheld the lower court. California appealed to The United States Supreme Court who refuse to hear it. Now I don't know why they refused to hear it, but my guess would be they had already made a similar ruling when they said that illegals were entitled to Social Security. Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:49:05 HR is quite a mind reader. roland Member Thu Sep 10 22:50:44 Especially when he declared that no one can show GWB lied because no one can read his mind. Now, HR is claiming he can read BHO's mind. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 22:52:43 "Now, you know as much as I do, if you want to know more go research it yourself. I am satisfied that Obama purposely and with intent lied to us." I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? I wouldn't blame him; most lawyers and legal experts focus on common law within their own spheres of influence. For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York, instead of somewhere like Alabama or, hell, even California. Opponents of health reform should be focusing on the negatives of the bill. They should not be obsessing over and trying to pick apart every little detail of a speech that in the end was little more than grandstanding. Hrothgar Member Thu Sep 10 22:57:30 There is a time and place to discuss disagreements over what the President has said. During the middle of his speech is not the place. That guy is not a hero. He's a loud mouth and showed a distinct lack of respect for his country's leader. For over 225 years our leaders have managed for the vast majority of the time keep debate and arguments civil. They have understood that the other political party is a fellow American opponent, not an enemy. It will be better off for us all if it stays that way. The outrageous extremists on the left and right need to be slapped down when they start getting out of hand and making thing uncivil. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:30:44 Rugian - I don't suppose you could entertain the possibility that he never heard of the case? It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. Rugian - For example, as a teacher in New York Obama would have given his students maximum benefit by teaching them common law as it exists in New York... LOL, why would someone whose job it is to teach Constitutional Law even consider teaching New York Common Law to their students. I swear you are just as stupid as roland. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:37:17 Ugh, this is headache inducing. Do you even know the most basic concepts of law? From the standpoint of common law interpretations of Constitutional law, you obviously look at USSC rulings first. But then you also look at how lower level courts interpret Constitutional law in the jurisdiction that you're likely to practice law in. This is important because depending on what circuit your area falls under, you can have vastly different common law precedents regarding Constitutional law interpretations in effect. Goddamn, I try to reasonably point something out to you and you make it impossible. You truly are a gifted troll Hot Rod. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:38:48 So basically, if a district or circuit court makes a precedent-establishing ruling on an aspect of Constitutional law in your area and it never reaches the Supreme Court, you need to know about that "local" ruling. Please don't argue against this, it is practically guaranteed to make you look stupid if you do. Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:43:39 Taking the New York example, someone going to Columbia and planning to practice or teach Constitutional law in New York would spend a disproportionate amount of time looking at 2nd Circuit cases, in comparison to all other circuits. Get it now? Rugian Member Thu Sep 10 23:49:45 Oh, and just to hammer the point home and to be explicit as possible, 2nd Circuit rulings on cases that related to the application of Constitutional law in a particular matter and that were not reviewed by the Supreme Court are examples of the "common law existing in New York" that are relevant to legal experts of Constitutional law. Good night Rod. When I get up in 7 hours I expect to see that you have accepted this and moved on. Hot Rod Member Thu Sep 10 23:52:54 Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change. The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and inferior courts. The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one which courts can and do ignore occasionally. In other words, when the Supreme Court decided the case of allowing Social Security to illegal aliens, there was no need to hear further cases concerning benefits for illegals. "The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority) which an inferior court cannot change." You cannot tell me that Obama is totally unaware of the Supreme Court decision concerning illegals and Social Security. Now, you go research it and if you can prove me wrong, I will certainly listen. Beyond that, I don't give a fuck what you think. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:01:20 The USSC made no decision concerning illegals. You seem to be woefully uneducated about how precedent is set. When the USSC refuses to hear a case, as it did in this instance, it is not saying "we affirm the decision of the lower court and establish binding precedent on all lower courts in the country." It is instead saying "we refuse to either affirm or overturn the decision of the lower court. The lower court's decision is binding precedent within its own jurisdiction but is not binding anywhere else." Please learn the basics of how common law works. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:03:20 In other words, your quote about stare decisis doesn't apply. "Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis can be divided into two components. The first is the rule that a decision made by a superior court is binding precedent (also known as mandatory authority)" That's where your example fails. By refusing to hear the case, no decision was made by the USSC. Rugian Member Fri Sep 11 00:07:45 Does it burn you to know that someone a third of your age knows so much more about the system of law that has been used to govern you for the better part of a century than you do? Ninja Member Fri Sep 11 00:57:57 "It doesn't matter if he ever heard of the case or not. It cannot be deleted from the Bill. " Except that if he didn't even hear about it, it isn't a lie because he did not willfully know that it would be overturned (even if you weren't blowing smoke out your ass). How can you be so fucking old yet have no fucking clue about the basics of the court system? Are you senile or just a fucking retard? president bush Member Fri Sep 11 06:00:03 lol Hot Rod Member Fri Sep 11 06:46:23 As usual you fucking liberals don't have the brains to read what I posted so you can go fuck yourselves. I would rather argue with a fucking iron ball, it would be far more intelligent that a stupid assed liberal.
	show deleted posts