Attacking the Supreme Court

[RetiredGySgt]

We have had several people make spurious claims against the Supreme Court recently. One made the claim that the court ruled 5-4 in favor of Bush in 2000, when the actual ruling was 7-2 on the question whether the recount was Unconstitutional. This same person made the claim the " conservative" court was responsible for allowing kidnappings of foreigners to be brought to justice in the US, when in fact the Court voted 9-0 in the case and then 6-3 in another part of the ruling in support ( the 3 dissenters were the Conservative members) and then this member, as usual ran away from the thread.

Just curious how many times these people will get to lie and or be "mistaken" and never called on it. Allowed to slink away and later post the same "mistake" in another thread?

Several posters have claimed the Liberals on the Court did NOT rule that local and State Governments can seize land and give it to others based solely on an increase in tax revenue.

These people keep making spurious claims against the "conservative" members and when shown just how bad the liberals have ruled, vanishing from the thread.

 

[Larkinn]

We have had several people make spurious claims against the Supreme Court recently. One made the claim that the court ruled 5-4 in favor of Bush in 2000, when the actual ruling was 7-2 on the question whether the recount was Unconstitutional.

Incorrect. The court ruled 7-2 on the question of the way the recount was currently being done was unconstitutional. It ruled 5-4 on whether there was time to do another type of recount. Saying vaguely that it was 5-4 is no more correct than what you have done, which is vaguely say that it was 7-2. If you are going to insist on accuracy in others, at least attempt to have some accuracy yourself.

This same person made the claim the " conservative" court was responsible for allowing kidnappings of foreigners to be brought to justice in the US, when in fact the Court voted 9-0 in the case and then 6-3 in another part of the ruling in support ( the 3 dissenters were the Conservative members) and then this member, as usual ran away from the thread.

The conservative (which it is) court hasn't allowed kidnappings of foreigners to be brought to justice in the US. Or at least they haven't said its legal. They merely said there was no private action. And the "dissent" was on a procedural posture, of the main claim they agreed with the majority. There wasn't actually any dissent, it was a concurring opinion.

Just curious how many times these people will get to lie and or be "mistaken" and never called on it. Allowed to slink away and later post the same "mistake" in another thread?

Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Am I going to get an apology for the numerous times you've lied about me? Doubtful.

Several posters have claimed the Liberals on the Court did NOT rule that local and State Governments can seize land and give it to others based solely on an increase in tax revenue.

Cite please?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Incorrect. The court ruled 7-2 on the question of the way the recount was currently being done was unconstitutional. It ruled 5-4 on whether there was time to do another type of recount. Saying vaguely that it was 5-4 is no more correct than what you have done, which is vaguely say that it was 7-2. If you are going to insist on accuracy in others, at least attempt to have some accuracy yourself.



The conservative (which it is) court hasn't allowed kidnappings of foreigners to be brought to justice in the US. Or at least they haven't said its legal. They merely said there was no private action. And the "dissent" was on a procedural posture, of the main claim they agreed with the majority. There wasn't actually any dissent, it was a concurring opinion.



Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Am I going to get an apology for the numerous times you've lied about me? Doubtful.



Cite please?

Cite Please? You can not be serious? You have implied just that. But I forgot, your just playing word games. You think that is ok.

As to the 7-2, the decision is the heart of the matter. Liberals have insisted it was a political decision based solely on party affiliation. That the Court had no business making any decision in the case and then claiming as proof a 5-4 ruling on the separate matter of whether time remained to conduct a CONSTITUTIONALLY sound recount. 7-2 the Court ruled the base claim, that the recount as ordered was Unconstitutional. So much for the spurious claim that only the Conservatives on the Court agreed with the base charge. So much for the SPURIOUS claim that the Court had no business making any ruling at all.

Another poster insisted that the decision to not allow legal action by "kidnapped" foreigners was an outrage, again perpetrated on the people of this Country by Conservatives in the Court. A court that voted 9-0 on the question.

Go ahead, try and twist it anyway you please. The claims made are simply NOT correct. They are further made by at least one Lawyer that is wrong on the facts and wrong on the Court, wrong purposefully so for POLITICAL reasons.

 

[Larkinn]

Cite Please? You can not be serious? You have implied just that. But I forgot, your just playing word games. You think that is ok.

I have neither stated not implied "just that". I was asking for the cite so I can look it up and see whether you are, yet again, lying without having to do more research than necessary.

As to the 7-2, the decision is the heart of the matter. Liberals have insisted it was a political decision based solely on party affiliation. That the Court had no business making any decision in the case and then claiming as proof a 5-4 ruling on the separate matter of whether time remained to conduct a CONSTITUTIONALLY sound recount. 7-2 the Court ruled the base claim, that the recount as ordered was Unconstitutional.

Who exactly on this board has said that, and please quote them.

So much for the spurious claim that only the Conservatives on the Court agreed with the base charge. So much for the SPURIOUS claim that the Court had no business making any ruling at all.

The base charge was that a recount was unconstituional. The court ruled 5-4 along party lines on that.

Another poster insisted that the decision to not allow legal action by "kidnapped" foreigners was an outrage, again perpetrated on the people of this Country by Conservatives in the Court. A court that voted 9-0 on the question.

By the way...I don't suppose you ever took back your claim that the ruling was 6-3 did you?

Go ahead, try and twist it anyway you please. The claims made are simply NOT correct. They are further made by at least one Lawyer that is wrong on the facts and wrong on the Court, wrong purposefully so for POLITICAL reasons.

Considering you don't know what the court has done, I really don't trust you to decide whether other peoples claims on the courts actions are legitimate or not.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The base charge was that a recount was unconstituional. The court ruled 5-4 along party lines on that.

Wrong again , for being our intellectual superior it simply boogles the mind how you can not get simple facts right.

The base charge was that the Specific recount as ordered by the Florida Supreme Court was wrong. That was affirmed 7-2. The 5-4 decision was whether there was enough time left to fix the count across the State.

But do continue to pretend otherwise.

As for the rest YOU specifically posted in a thread I was in that the Democrats had not done as I posted. That you are now feigning ignorance on the issue is hillarious, but par for the course from the guy that thinks the statement " it depends on what IS means" is the height of intellicutual defense.

Twist twist twist, it won't do you any good, but do keep trying, at least you are in here trying, as opposed to several other posters that want nothing more than to distance themselves from their foolish claims.

 

[Larkinn]

The base charge was that the Specific recount as ordered by the Florida Supreme Court was wrong. That was affirmed 7-2. The 5-4 decision was whether there was enough time left to fix the count across the State.

*sigh*...what was the main issue at hand in the court case? It was whether there would be a recount or not, yes? That was the base issue. The 5-4 decision came much closer to that than the 7-2 decision.

As for the rest YOU specifically posted in a thread I was in that the Democrats had not done as I posted. That you are now feigning ignorance on the issue is hillarious, but par for the course from the guy that thinks the statement " it depends on what IS means" is the height of intellicutual defense.

Yay more lies from RGS. You claimed a bunch of things that "liberals" wanted as a generic generalization. You were wrong. Me calling you wrong does not mean every single statement in your paragraph was wrong. Really, is this complicated?

Twist twist twist, it won't do you any good, but do keep trying, at least you are in here trying, as opposed to several other posters that want nothing more than to distance themselves from their foolish claims.

I can see how trying to explain simple concepts to someone as stupid as you seems like twisting, but its really not. I also note how you are refusing to give the cite. I also wonder, which of these court cases have you actually read? Any? Or are you just relying on the commentary of others?

 

[maineman]

RGS: Are you suggesting that the Supreme Court did NOT vote 5-4 to put a halt to the Florida recount?

 

[Larkinn]

RGS: Are you suggesting that the Supreme Court did NOT vote 5-4 to put a halt to the Florida recount?

Thats a vague question...they voted 7-2 to halt the recount as it was currently being done. Its not that the recount, generally, was a problem but that the way it was being done was. However as to whether to order a new recount in line with USSC directives, that was ruled against 5-4.

 

[maineman]

the point is: for RGS to call folks LIARS for saying that the vote was 5-4 is silly.

 

[Larkinn]

the point is: for RGS to call folks LIARS for saying that the vote was 5-4 is silly.

More like stupid and dishonest, but what else is new. He has made several false claims lately, all the while bleating about how liberals are liars and trying unsuccessfully to point those lies out.

 

[maineman]

He straight out accused me of having attacked Bush's service record as early as 1999. Flat out lie. I called him on it, and he will NOT retract it. He is SOOOO frightened of appearing "weak" to his fellow liberals, he doesn't realize that he ends up appearing as a coward to everyone else.

 

[midcan5]

Keeping Count:

Larkinn 3 RetiredGySgt 0

 

[Psychoblues]

Seriously, Larkin, rgs is a liar, spot on.

More like stupid and dishonest, but what else is new. He has made several false claims lately, all the while bleating about how liberals are liars and trying unsuccessfully to point those lies out.

I ain't smokin' dope or anything but how are convinced that he is a RetiredGySgt?

Everything he's told me tells me that he is a sap on the American economy and willfully so. I don't agree with you that he is stupid but I do agree that he is dishonest.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The base charge was that the Specific recount as ordered by the Florida Supreme Court was wrong. That was affirmed 7-2. The 5-4 decision was whether there was enough time left to fix the count across the State.

There was a question of equal protection that was decided 7-2.
The EP decision mandated that the counts be stopped.

At which point, the issue goes to the FL legislature, as the FL legislature is the only body that can set the standards for evaluating a ballot. The FL leguslature had one day to this, if it were so inclined to do so.

However, it is illegal to change election law -during- an election.

And thus, the election law had to stand as it was -- unconstitutional. As such the counting had to stop.

So, the 5-4 ruling didnt decide the election, the 7-2 ruling did.

 

[Psychoblues]

NeoCons will never, ever admit to their own wrongdoing. As my grandmother would say, "The proof is in the pudding."

 

[RetiredGySgt]

NeoCons will never, ever admit to their own wrongdoing. As my grandmother would say, "The proof is in the pudding."

Sure thing you moron. get booted from the other board again?

 

[Psychoblues]

Hear this, rgs!!!! SSSMMMOOOOTTTTCCCHHH!!!!

Sure thing you moron. get booted from the other board again?

Kiss my ass, you moron!!!!!!!!!!!! Have you nothing to say about the dilemma indicated in the original post? Have you nothing to say about truth?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Hear this, rgs!!!! SSSMMMOOOOTTTTCCCHHH!!!!




Kiss my ass, you moron!!!!!!!!!!!! Have you nothing to say about the dilemma indicated in the original post? Have you nothing to say about truth?

You wouldn't know truth if it crawled up your ass and bite your head off.

How about instead of pithy little worthless one liners you articulate a real thought. I am past tired of your drive by bullshit. I only respond to your moronic drivel cause I know I can get a rise out of your ignorant ass.

 

[ReillyT]

You wouldn't know truth if it crawled up your ass and bite your head off.

How about instead of pithy little worthless one liners you articulate a real thought. I am past tired of your drive by bullshit. I only respond to your moronic drivel cause I know I can get a rise out of your ignorant ass.

Wow RGS. I am impressed by the level of beat down you just received.

No worries. It happens to everybody sooner or later.