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

Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Fri Jun 27 16:04:20 2025

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.

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.

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

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.
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.
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

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: