Reply With QuoteHaving a discussion with you reminds of the old Arby's commercial, "where's the beef" You seem to be all hot air and little to no substance.Originally Posted by mark blazejewski
If you want to play Perry Mason, find another playmate, or get pants without pockets. Those pants will provide you with clothing and a playmate too!
I never directly stated that I believe the application in this case was not correct. I used the words "seem" and "appearance, " and the idiom "raise an impartial" eyebrow," (emphasis on the word impartial) which reflects my skepticism about the Judge's predisposition on the matter.
And before you get back in this reply I used the word "skepticism" regarding the Judge's predisposition, or do you have a law governing personal opinions?
But again, please refer to:
Judge Who Blocked Trump Sanctuary City Order Bundled $200K for Obama
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/04/2...william-orrick
Last edited by mark blazejewski; November 21st, 2017 at 03:23 PM.
Having a discussion with you reminds of the old Arby's commercial, "where's the beef" You seem to be all hot air and little to no substance.
Last edited by dtwarren; November 21st, 2017 at 03:51 PM.
“We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” ― Thomas Jefferson
The post of the dayOriginally posted by mark blazejewski:
If you want to play Perry Mason, find another playmate, or get pants without pockets. Those pants will provide you with clothing and a playmate too!
rolling-on-the-floor-laughing-animated-gif-3.jpg
Georgia L Schlager
Yea, the basis of my skepticism, (that is an conditional opinion based on informed instinct) in part, resides on the presented link.
Besides, the commercial to which you referred was sponsored by "Wendy's." Dummy.
If part of the GOP platform is support of the Tenth Amendment then why should a Republican president not be held to it regardless of who appointed the judge or at what time or what the judges past is?
“We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” ― Thomas Jefferson
Yea, speaking of applying "political platforms," to governance and the rule of law, how about a little respect for Article One and the Twelfth Amendment? Not just in 2017, but especially in 2000 in Bush v. Gore. Just sayin'.
While I have heard a school of thought that Congress can re-mediate the 9th Circuit decision, I did not intend to refer to Article One in my response, but Article Two.
My bad.
To be clear, the comment should have originally read:
Yea, speaking of applying "political platforms," to governance and the rule of law, how about a little respect for Article Two and the Twelfth Amendment? Not just in 2017, but especially in 2000 in Bush v. Gore. Just sayin'.
Last edited by mark blazejewski; November 21st, 2017 at 05:55 PM.
My point is that the President issued an Executive Order that violated the 10th Amendment while at the same time he purports to be a Republican and as such he purports to stand for the Republican platform which supports the Tenth Amendment. He of all people should at least make sure his Executive Orders are in line with the platform of the party he purports to represent.
“We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” ― Thomas Jefferson
Strange that the great legal mind concerns himself with the vulgar world of political party platform(s).
Without reference to the legal merits of the 9th Circuit's decision, your repeated references to such platform(s) would seem to support my initial skepticism (that's an opinion based on an informed instinct) that the ruling may not have been without political prejudice.
Just sayin' Counsel.
More hot air and no substance trying to defend the indefensible. He ran on the Republican line, when he accepted our nomination he accepted our platform. Our platform supports the Tenth Amendment and he cannot even make sure an Executive Order that came from him and his staff alone adheres to it. Why should any Republican continue to support him? And that the opposite is worse is wearing thin so come up with something more meaningful and less sophomoric.
“We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” ― Thomas Jefferson
Do you understand what this means:
I am not defending anything. Simply put, you are preemptively advocating and asserting. I am stating an opinion.Without reference to the legal merits of the 9th Circuit's decision,
I am not a lawyer, and unlike some want-to-be's, I do not play one on t.v., or engage the practice of law on Speak Up.
CAPEESH?
I was not referencing the 9th Circuit's decision, nor was I referencing the U.S. District Court's decision that struck down his Sanctuary Jurisdictions EO. Just on the face of it if you know that the Tenth Amendment prohibits the federal government from compelling State's or their Officers from carrying out Federal Policy then why would you sign something that does exactly that?
“We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” ― Thomas Jefferson
More meaningful and less sophomoric?And that the opposite is worse is wearing thin so come up with something more meaningful and less sophomoric.
Okay, I would say something like this in my junior year: Get lost ass whole. I think that judge is a political hack, a huge contributor, and a "Deep State" tool. Unless you are Jesus Christ impersonating as a want-to-be lawyer, your opinion no more worthy than my own.
Good legal opinions are expensive. Bad legal opinions are expensive. As far as your gratuitously free opinions, you can wipe your ass with them.
Drop your dong, and pick-up a dictionary, and try reading that.
What am I signing on to? My own opinion? Yep, and that opinion is that the judge is a political hack.it if you know that the Tenth Amendment prohibits the federal government from compelling State's or their Officers from carrying out Federal Policy then why would you sign something that does exactly that?[
[You were not referencing the 9th Circuits decision? Seriously?QUOTE=dtwarren;1764180]I was not referencing the 9th Circuit's decision, nor was I referencing the U.S. District Court's decision that struck down his Sanctuary Jurisdictions EO.
(1) Then explain this comment you made today, on Post #1048, and the link to the pleadings that YOU attached:
Am I to understand that you posted those pleadings by accident or as an irrelevancy? Give me a F**n' break.Here is that pesky little Tenth Amendment again: https://assets.documentcloud.org/doc...t-21296594.pdf
(2) Also, kindly explain this comment you made today on Post #1050:
Are you sure you were not referencing the 9th Circuit's decision, or was that comment indicative of a type of Tourette's malady?Please elaborate on why you believe its application in this case was not correct?
My hot air and lack of substance seems to have been surpassed by your inconsistent, contradictory, and imaginative presentation.
Rest well, with visions of black robes and bailiffs dancing in your heads.
Last edited by mark blazejewski; November 21st, 2017 at 08:42 PM.
There are currently 38 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 38 guests)
Posting Permissions
