Supreme court ducks the issue

Discussion in 'Politics' started by axeman, Jun 14, 2004.


  1. oh i delivered on all fronts..

    in SPADES!

    you proved yourself unworthy of any more of my time or attention.

    you got your nuts squashed here..

    and obliterated on diet thread at my hand..

    bad day for ya axemonkey eh haha
     
    #11     Jun 14, 2004
  2. Listen up you delusional little piece of shit :p

    You got your ass handed to you AGAIN.

    I objectively PROVED youre full of it.


    Further.... ET needs to take the garbage out.
    You dont even trade.... you blew up your little 10K account!
    ROFLAMOOOOOOOOOO :p

    Get lost poser..... your low IQ is dragging the ET average waaaay down :p

    BWAAAA HAAA HAAAAAAA!!!!!!

    How many MORE of my bets are you gonna run away from chicken little? :p

    peace

    axeman


     
    #12     Jun 14, 2004
  3.  
    #13     Jun 14, 2004
  4. Lookout ArchAngel...you have ETs biggest poser moron
    agreeing with you, longshot.

    Always a bad sign :D


    peace

    axeman
     
    #14     Jun 14, 2004
  5. Pabst

    Pabst

    Axe, you're being argumentive and illogical.(though I respect your intellect)

    The Supreme Court did not DUCK the issue. Your choice of verbiage is disingenuous.
     
    #15     Jun 14, 2004
  6. haha axe :D

    oh yeah check out his ILL LOGIC on Diet thread
     
    #16     Jun 14, 2004
  7. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-1624

    they clearly ducked it - they based the lack of standing on custody claims on the child that arose after the suit was filed. do you really think a custody claim was the reason the case made it to the supreme court? LOL.

    the sup. ct. reaches a decision, then plays with whatever precedent is available to support it - its entirely political. there's enough variability in the case law to justify anything, if they want to. If the parents had been in reversed positions, they would've argued that a non-custodial parent retains rights nonetheless.

    they were looking for an easy way to put this away. this is a low-profile, politically-correct way to clear up some controversy, for the time being anyway. as to why... take a guess.
     
    #17     Jun 14, 2004
  8. The word "duck" is not mine. Im using the american atheists
    quoted verbiage in case you didnt notice.

    My position is that the CORE issue was NOT addressed. Period.
    There was NO ruling on the separation of church and state issue
    which is what this case is REALLY all about. Not Newdows
    custody issues.

    Wether or not there was some conspiracy by the supreme court
    to avoid the issue on purpose is a different matter.


    peace

    axeman



     
    #18     Jun 14, 2004
  9. HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHA..

    HERE HE GOES AGAIN..

    "WELL I WEALLY WEALLY DINT MEAN DUCK, NOT MY WORDS..BLAH BLAH BLAH..."

    BWHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAA!!

    DODGE HEDGE DODGE HEDGE DODGE HEDGE DODGE HEDGE

    LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE


    WHAT A PIECE OF WORK. SEE ME EXPOSE THIS POSER FURTHER ON DIET THREAD!!
     
    #19     Jun 14, 2004
  10. Pabst

    Pabst

    Without a correctly filed case, how can a ruling be made?
     
    #20     Jun 14, 2004