Europe
- kurtster - Jun 10, 2024 - 1:22am
Joe Biden
- kurtster - Jun 9, 2024 - 10:58pm
What Are You Going To Do Today?
- kcar - Jun 9, 2024 - 7:09pm
Trump
- Red_Dragon - Jun 9, 2024 - 1:54pm
Is there any DOG news out there?
- thisbody - Jun 9, 2024 - 12:38pm
Name My Band
- thisbody - Jun 9, 2024 - 11:57am
Quick! I need a chicken...
- thisbody - Jun 9, 2024 - 10:38am
NY Times Strands
- Proclivities - Jun 9, 2024 - 10:15am
Breaking News
- thisbody - Jun 9, 2024 - 10:01am
NYTimes Connections
- geoff_morphini - Jun 9, 2024 - 9:39am
Wordle - daily game
- geoff_morphini - Jun 9, 2024 - 9:19am
Radio Paradise Comments
- GeneP59 - Jun 9, 2024 - 9:11am
Song of the Day
- Proclivities - Jun 9, 2024 - 8:34am
Today in History
- DaveInSaoMiguel - Jun 9, 2024 - 8:20am
Mixtape Culture Club
- Steely_D - Jun 8, 2024 - 9:22pm
Israel
- R_P - Jun 8, 2024 - 8:52pm
China
- R_P - Jun 8, 2024 - 7:42pm
Economix
- Bill_J - Jun 8, 2024 - 5:25pm
Climate Change
- R_P - Jun 8, 2024 - 4:29pm
Gotta Get Your Drink On
- Antigone - Jun 8, 2024 - 2:42pm
Snakes & streaming images. WTH is going on?
- rasta_tiger - Jun 8, 2024 - 2:16pm
Strips, cartoons, illustrations
- R_P - Jun 8, 2024 - 11:28am
Great guitar faces
- thisbody - Jun 8, 2024 - 10:39am
TEXAS
- maryte - Jun 8, 2024 - 9:21am
NASA & other news from space
- Beaker - Jun 8, 2024 - 8:23am
Live Music
- oldviolin - Jun 7, 2024 - 10:03pm
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •
- oldviolin - Jun 7, 2024 - 9:54pm
Republican Party
- kcar - Jun 7, 2024 - 8:11pm
favorite love songs
- Manbird - Jun 7, 2024 - 8:06pm
Lyrics that are stuck in your head today...
- Manbird - Jun 7, 2024 - 8:04pm
What the hell OV?
- oldviolin - Jun 7, 2024 - 7:42pm
Things You Thought Today
- Antigone - Jun 7, 2024 - 4:11pm
Can you afford to retire?
- JrzyTmata - Jun 7, 2024 - 2:05pm
Old timers, crosswords &
- ScottFromWyoming - Jun 7, 2024 - 12:09pm
Military Matters
- R_P - Jun 7, 2024 - 11:31am
Bug Reports & Feature Requests
- Laptopdog - Jun 7, 2024 - 11:09am
Derplahoma!
- Red_Dragon - Jun 7, 2024 - 8:01am
Favorite Quotes
- black321 - Jun 7, 2024 - 7:45am
What makes you smile?
- Red_Dragon - Jun 7, 2024 - 6:32am
June 2024 Photo Theme - Eyes
- fractalv - Jun 6, 2024 - 3:58pm
Artificial Intelligence
- johkir - Jun 6, 2024 - 3:57pm
Cryptic Posts - Leave Them Guessing
- oldviolin - Jun 6, 2024 - 12:35pm
What's with the Sitar? ...and Robert Plant
- thisbody - Jun 6, 2024 - 11:16am
songs that ROCK!
- thisbody - Jun 6, 2024 - 10:39am
USA! USA! USA!
- R_P - Jun 6, 2024 - 8:32am
Democratic Party
- kurtster - Jun 5, 2024 - 9:23pm
Canada
- Beaker - Jun 5, 2024 - 1:58pm
the Todd Rundgren topic
- miamizsun - Jun 5, 2024 - 5:00am
Photos you have taken of your walks or hikes.
- MrDill - Jun 5, 2024 - 2:26am
What Makes You Laugh?
- Steely_D - Jun 5, 2024 - 12:44am
Automotive Lust
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Jun 4, 2024 - 9:28pm
Art Show
- Manbird - Jun 4, 2024 - 8:20pm
Bad Poetry
- Isabeau - Jun 4, 2024 - 12:11pm
Classic TV Curiosities
- Isabeau - Jun 4, 2024 - 12:09pm
What's that smell?
- Isabeau - Jun 4, 2024 - 11:50am
Music Videos
- black321 - Jun 4, 2024 - 10:11am
Baseball, anyone?
- ScottFromWyoming - Jun 4, 2024 - 8:28am
Your First Albums
- Manbird - Jun 3, 2024 - 5:42pm
King Crimson
- Steely_D - Jun 3, 2024 - 2:25pm
2024 Elections!
- R_P - Jun 3, 2024 - 10:19am
Your favourite conspiracy theory?
- Beaker - Jun 3, 2024 - 8:00am
Beer
- Red_Dragon - Jun 3, 2024 - 5:20am
Ukraine
- R_P - Jun 2, 2024 - 3:07pm
RP on Twitter
- R_P - Jun 1, 2024 - 2:47pm
Football, soccer, futbol, calcio...
- thisbody - Jun 1, 2024 - 10:20am
What Did You See Today?
- Isabeau - May 31, 2024 - 1:15pm
ONE WORD
- thisbody - May 31, 2024 - 10:39am
May 2024 Photo Theme - Peaceful
- Alchemist - May 30, 2024 - 6:58pm
Human Curated?
- Ipse_Dixit - May 30, 2024 - 2:55pm
Evolution!
- R_P - May 30, 2024 - 12:22pm
Sonos
- konz - May 30, 2024 - 10:26am
Fascism In America
- R_P - May 29, 2024 - 11:01pm
You might be getting old if......
- Bill_J - May 29, 2024 - 6:05pm
Science in the News
- black321 - May 29, 2024 - 11:56am
Roku App - Roku Asterisk Menu
- RPnate1 - May 29, 2024 - 11:15am
|
Index »
Regional/Local »
USA/Canada »
Supreme Court Rulings
|
Page: Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 Next |
steeler
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
|
Posted:
Jan 5, 2012 - 1:58pm |
|
oldslabsides wrote:
they found the freemen, didn't they?
Ah, the freemen! Asserted the right to declare themselves sovereign — and to engage in check-kiting! Sorry, couldn't resist. I always think that each time I hear them mentioned . . .been a while.
|
|
aflanigan
Location: At Sea Gender:
|
Posted:
Jan 5, 2012 - 1:33pm |
|
oldslabsides wrote:
how long do you think the feds will let that stand?
Technically, it requires someone with legal standing to appeal the decision for the Supremes to get involved, but it's likely the corporate interests that were party to the suit in Montana may in fact do that.
|
|
Red_Dragon
Location: Dumbf*ckistan
|
Posted:
Jan 5, 2012 - 1:31pm |
|
cc_rider wrote: Are you kidding? The Feds don't even know where Montana is.
they found the freemen, didn't they?
|
|
cc_rider
Location: Bastrop Gender:
|
Posted:
Jan 5, 2012 - 1:27pm |
|
oldslabsides wrote:how long do you think the feds will let that stand?
Are you kidding? The Feds don't even know where Montana is.
|
|
Red_Dragon
Location: Dumbf*ckistan
|
Posted:
Jan 5, 2012 - 1:24pm |
|
aflanigan wrote: how long do you think the feds will let that stand?
|
|
aflanigan
Location: At Sea Gender:
|
|
(former member)
Location: hotel in Las Vegas Gender:
|
Posted:
Jan 2, 2012 - 11:06am |
|
Montana high court upholds ban on election spending by corporationsby Matt Gouras Great Falls Tribune December 30, 2011 HELENA — The Montana Supreme Court restored the state's century-old ban on direct spending by corporations on political candidates or committees in a ruling Friday that interest groups say bucks a high-profile U.S. Supreme Court decision granting political speech rights to corporations.
The decision grants a big win to Attorney General Steve Bullock, who personally represented the state in defending its ban that came under fire after the "Citizens United" decision last year from the U.S. Supreme court. "The Citizens United decision dealt with federal laws and elections — like those contests for president and Congress," said Bullock, who is now running for governor. "But the vast majority of elections are held at the state or local level, and this is the first case I am aware of that examines state laws and elections." The corporation that brought the case and is also fighting accusations that it illegally gathers anonymous donations to fuel political attacks, said the state Supreme Court got it wrong. The group argues that the 1912 Corrupt Practices Act, passed as a citizen's ballot initiative, unconstitutionally blocks political speech by corporations...
|
|
cc_rider
Location: Bastrop Gender:
|
Posted:
Sep 22, 2011 - 1:05pm |
|
Lazy8 wrote:
That would have been a problem too, but that isn't what he apologized for and that isn't what troubles me about his (and the various courts') ruling. Sympathy with one of the parties in a suit must never be the basis for a decision—it has to be driven by the law regardless of who wins or loses. Otherwise we lose the rule of law, and the law might as well not be there. Trials would just be popularity contests. My problem with his apology was that it resulted from the outcome. He ruled that Conneticut could seize her house (and her neighbor's houses) and hand the land over to a private party based on the vague assumption that that private party would bring in more tax revenue. That revenue never materialized and that's the basis for his regret, but that was a possibility when he ruled. He's saying that if he could have predicted that outcome he'd have ruled otherwise. The precedent would have been made the other way, but not based on the law—just the shifting fortunes of the the company who got the sweetheart deal. That has many layers of wrong all over it. The Kelo decision was bad law because it was a faulty reading of the constitution, not because the taxpayers got screwed just as badly as the people their government screwed. I agree, the ruling never made sense on its face, no matter the outcome. Taking private property away from one group of citizens, giving it to another group of private citizens, for the express purpose of a for-profit commercial venture? That's what our country has come to? That's practically the definition of fascism.
And we're supposed to think that judge is qualified to rule on matters of Constitutionality? He sheds crocodile tears over a ruling that ruined a bunch of peoples' lives, because they had the audacity to buy property someone else might eventually want to build a strip-mall on? Worse, it set a very dangerous precedent: your property can be seized, by force if necessary, if your government decides somebody else should have it. Not for public use, mind you, but for a privately-owned business.
This is the stuff revolutions are made of.
|
|
imnotpc
Location: Around here somewhere Gender:
|
Posted:
Sep 22, 2011 - 12:46pm |
|
For some reason reply isn't working on your post, but well said Lazy8.
|
|
Lazy8
Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana Gender:
|
Posted:
Sep 22, 2011 - 12:30pm |
|
cc_rider wrote:Wow. When a sitting Judge discovers his rulings affect actual people, all of a sudden he has a change of heart. Thanks a lot, asshole.
That would have been a problem too, but that isn't what he apologized for and that isn't what troubles me about his (and the various courts') ruling. Sympathy with one of the parties in a suit must never be the basis for a decision—it has to be driven by the law regardless of who wins or loses. Otherwise we lose the rule of law, and the law might as well not be there. Trials would just be popularity contests. My problem with his apology was that it resulted from the outcome. He ruled that Conneticut could seize her house (and her neighbor's houses) and hand the land over to a private party based on the vague assumption that that private party would bring in more tax revenue. That revenue never materialized and that's the basis for his regret, but that was a possibility when he ruled. He's saying that if he could have predicted that outcome he'd have ruled otherwise. The precedent would have been made the other way, but not based on the law—just the shifting fortunes of the the company who got the sweetheart deal. That has many layers of wrong all over it. The Kelo decision was bad law because it was a faulty reading of the constitution, not because the taxpayers got screwed just as badly as the people their government screwed.
|
|
cc_rider
Location: Bastrop Gender:
|
Posted:
Sep 22, 2011 - 12:04pm |
|
Lazy8 wrote:It's important to understand exactly what he's apologizing for, but the revelation is illuminating.
Wow. When a sitting Judge discovers his rulings affect actual people, all of a sudden he has a change of heart. Thanks a lot, asshole.
|
|
ScottFromWyoming
Location: Powell Gender:
|
Posted:
Sep 21, 2011 - 5:27pm |
|
Lazy8 wrote:It's important to understand exactly what he's apologizing for, but the revelation is illuminating. Good read.
|
|
Lazy8
Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana Gender:
|
Posted:
Sep 21, 2011 - 4:30pm |
|
It's important to understand exactly what he's apologizing for, but the revelation is illuminating. Supreme Court Justice's Startling Apology Adds Human Context To Tough Ruling Though she lost the eminent domain case against New London and her home, Susette Kelo, seen at an eminent domain protest at the Capitol in 2006, became a compelling figure in the property rights movement. (Rick Hartford, The Hartford Courant / September 18, 2011) If a state Supreme Court judge approaches a journalist at a private dinner and says something newsworthy about an important decision, is the journalist free to publish the statement? I faced that situation at a dinner honoring the Connecticut Supreme Court at the New Haven Lawn Club on May 11, 2010. That night I had delivered the keynote address on the U.S. Supreme Court's infamous 5-4 decision in Kelo v. New London. Susette Kelo was in the audience and I used the occasion to tell her personal story, as documented in my book "Little Pink House." Afterward, Susette and I were talking in a small circle of people when we were approached by Justice Richard N. Palmer. Tall and imposing, he is one of the four justices who voted with the 4-3 majority against Susette and her neighbors. Facing me, he said: "Had I known all of what you just told us, I would have voted differently."
|
|
aflanigan
Location: At Sea Gender:
|
Posted:
Jun 29, 2011 - 9:17am |
|
BUSH v. GORE(no, not THAT Bush v. Gore)
|
|
cc_rider
Location: Bastrop Gender:
|
Posted:
Jun 2, 2011 - 11:46am |
|
ankhara99 wrote: This is one the Court got right. The only problem with this law is that it relies on the E-Verify database, which by the accounts I've heard is sketchy and inaccurate. Hopefully the feds won't cut the funding to it and make things even worse.
You've heard about the budget crisis, right? But you're right, this is the sort of thing the GOP will not touch. Along with Defense spending, tax cuts, corporate handouts. We NEED those things. Those are not luxuries like, oh, safe food, clean water, kids in school, stuff like that.
|
|
ankhara99
Location: Over the Rainbow Gender:
|
Posted:
Jun 2, 2011 - 11:43am |
|
kurtster wrote:How come no one is talking about this ruling handed down last week ? The left got its wish by putting businesses on the defensive over hiring illegals, a major point of the left in the debate over solving illegal immigration. In fact many on the left here have supported the notion that scrutinizing businesses should be the first action taken in slowing down the things that draw illegals here. Where is the celebration ? The law was even signed into law by then Arizona governor and now HLS chief, Janet Napolitano. The silence is deafening ... Our newest Justice, Kagan, recused herself because she was the solicitor for the administration, but is not planning on recusing herself when Obama's HC Bill arrives for a ruling, even though she advised on the construction of the Bill. This is one the Court got right. The only problem with this law is that it relies on the E-Verify database, which by the accounts I've heard is sketchy and inaccurate. Hopefully the feds won't cut the funding to it and make things even worse.
|
|
Yibbyl
Location: Gaäd only knows Gender:
|
Posted:
Jun 2, 2011 - 11:01am |
|
kurtster wrote:No one talkin' bout it here, yet we can talk so much about how bad a mommy Palin is. Here's my search, took 3 pages before a hit on ABC, nothing but blogs after CNN. clicky here I guess its how you ask the question ... Hadn't heard due to being tied up with other things, fun & not-so-fun. Now that I know, good for AZ! Hopefully, CA has the balls to follow suit, though I doubt it. AZ got tired of the rhetoric and took action. CA politicians like to hear themselves talk and solving a problem gives them less to talk about. You see where I'm going with this. I think the possibility exists that several midwestern states will copy AZ's law. Then you will hear the coasties say things like how racist the plains staters are while they look down their noses. Oftentimes, people on the coasts lead the way with reforms. This is a case where you can bet they won't quickly hop on the bandwagon even though they would benefit from it more than the central states! That accusation of racism linked to enforcing businesses to obey existing laws causes some serious blindness to the facts. Others will see thru the BS, but that word will still keep them from following their hearts out of fear of being mislabeled.
|
|
kurtster
Location: where fear is not a virtue Gender:
|
Posted:
Jun 1, 2011 - 6:52pm |
|
hippiechick wrote: No one talkin' bout it here, yet we can talk so much about how bad a mommy Palin is. Here's my search, took 3 pages before a hit on ABC, nothing but blogs after CNN. clicky here I guess its how you ask the question ...
|
|
hippiechick
Location: topsy turvy land Gender:
|
|
jadewahoo
Location: Puerto Viejo, Costa Rica Gender:
|
Posted:
Jun 1, 2011 - 6:20pm |
|
kurtster wrote:Quite frankly, I am thrilled with this ruling for the reasons you stated above. Its right for the right reasons. And it also reinforces State's Rights and the 10th as well. I admit to the cheap shot on the left, but the silence over this ruling everywhere has had me a bit mystified, and as we know that doesn't take too much to accomplish. Silent? Hmm... I have run into it across the board in (legitimate) news sites. Yeah, those cheap shots will do nothing but leave you with ragged hangovers, buddy.
|
|
|