Wordle - daily game
- NoEnzLefttoSplit - Apr 17, 2024 - 8:02pm
NYTimes Connections
- geoff_morphini - Apr 17, 2024 - 7:06pm
April 2024 Photo Theme - Happenstance
- haresfur - Apr 17, 2024 - 7:04pm
Trump
- kurtster - Apr 17, 2024 - 6:58pm
Europe
- haresfur - Apr 17, 2024 - 6:47pm
Country Up The Bumpkin
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Apr 17, 2024 - 5:23pm
Name My Band
- GeneP59 - Apr 17, 2024 - 3:27pm
Radio Paradise Comments
- GeneP59 - Apr 17, 2024 - 3:21pm
What's that smell?
- Isabeau - Apr 17, 2024 - 2:50pm
USA! USA! USA!
- R_P - Apr 17, 2024 - 1:48pm
Business as Usual
- black321 - Apr 17, 2024 - 1:48pm
Things that make you go Hmmmm.....
- dischuckin - Apr 17, 2024 - 1:29pm
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum
- VV - Apr 17, 2024 - 1:26pm
Russia
- R_P - Apr 17, 2024 - 1:14pm
Israel
- R_P - Apr 17, 2024 - 11:55am
Science in the News
- Red_Dragon - Apr 17, 2024 - 11:14am
Magic Eye optical Illusions
- Proclivities - Apr 17, 2024 - 10:08am
Ukraine
- kurtster - Apr 17, 2024 - 10:05am
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos
- Alchemist - Apr 17, 2024 - 9:38am
Song of the Day
- black321 - Apr 17, 2024 - 9:25am
Just for the Haiku of it. . .
- oldviolin - Apr 17, 2024 - 9:01am
HALF A WORLD
- oldviolin - Apr 17, 2024 - 8:52am
NY Times Strands
- Bill_J - Apr 17, 2024 - 8:45am
Today in History
- Red_Dragon - Apr 17, 2024 - 6:24am
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •
- oldviolin - Apr 16, 2024 - 9:08pm
Little known information... maybe even facts
- R_P - Apr 16, 2024 - 3:29pm
songs that ROCK!
- thisbody - Apr 16, 2024 - 10:56am
260,000 Posts in one thread?
- oldviolin - Apr 16, 2024 - 10:10am
WTF??!!
- rgio - Apr 16, 2024 - 5:23am
Australia has Disappeared
- haresfur - Apr 16, 2024 - 4:58am
Earthquake
- miamizsun - Apr 16, 2024 - 4:46am
It's the economy stupid.
- miamizsun - Apr 16, 2024 - 4:28am
TV shows you watch
- Manbird - Apr 15, 2024 - 7:28pm
Live Music
- oldviolin - Apr 15, 2024 - 2:06pm
Republican Party
- Isabeau - Apr 15, 2024 - 12:12pm
Vinyl Only Spin List
- kurtster - Apr 14, 2024 - 11:59am
Eclectic Sound-Drops
- thisbody - Apr 14, 2024 - 11:27am
Synchronization
- ReggieDXB - Apr 13, 2024 - 11:40pm
Other Medical Stuff
- geoff_morphini - Apr 13, 2024 - 7:54am
What Did You See Today?
- Steely_D - Apr 13, 2024 - 6:42am
Photos you have taken of your walks or hikes.
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Apr 12, 2024 - 3:50pm
Things You Thought Today
- Red_Dragon - Apr 12, 2024 - 3:05pm
Poetry Forum
- oldviolin - Apr 12, 2024 - 8:45am
Dear Bill
- oldviolin - Apr 12, 2024 - 8:16am
Radio Paradise in Foobar2000
- gvajda - Apr 11, 2024 - 6:53pm
The Obituary Page
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Apr 11, 2024 - 2:33pm
Mixtape Culture Club
- ColdMiser - Apr 11, 2024 - 8:29am
Joe Biden
- black321 - Apr 11, 2024 - 7:43am
New Song Submissions system
- MayBaby - Apr 11, 2024 - 6:29am
No TuneIn Stream Lately
- kurtster - Apr 10, 2024 - 6:26pm
Caching to Apple watch quit working
- email-muri.0z - Apr 10, 2024 - 6:25pm
April 8th Partial Solar Eclipse
- Alchemist - Apr 10, 2024 - 10:52am
Bug Reports & Feature Requests
- orrinc - Apr 10, 2024 - 10:48am
NPR Listeners: Is There Liberal Bias In Its Reporting?
- black321 - Apr 9, 2024 - 2:11pm
Sonos
- rnstory - Apr 9, 2024 - 10:43am
RP Windows Desktop Notification Applet
- gvajda - Apr 9, 2024 - 9:55am
If not RP, what are you listening to right now?
- kurtster - Apr 8, 2024 - 10:34am
And the good news is....
- thisbody - Apr 8, 2024 - 3:57am
How do I get songs into My Favorites
- Huey - Apr 7, 2024 - 11:29pm
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously
- R_P - Apr 7, 2024 - 5:14pm
Lyrics that strike a chord today...
- Isabeau - Apr 7, 2024 - 12:50pm
Dialing 1-800-Manbird
- oldviolin - Apr 7, 2024 - 11:18am
Why is Mellow mix192kbps?
- dean2.athome - Apr 7, 2024 - 1:11am
Musky Mythology
- haresfur - Apr 6, 2024 - 7:11pm
China
- R_P - Apr 6, 2024 - 11:19am
Artificial Intelligence
- R_P - Apr 5, 2024 - 12:45pm
Vega4 - Bullets
- nirgivon - Apr 5, 2024 - 11:50am
Environment
- thisbody - Apr 5, 2024 - 9:37am
How's the weather?
- geoff_morphini - Apr 5, 2024 - 8:37am
Frequent drop outs (The Netherlands)
- Babylon - Apr 5, 2024 - 8:37am
share song
- dkraybil - Apr 5, 2024 - 8:37am
Love & Hate
- miamizsun - Apr 5, 2024 - 5:37am
iOS borked
- RPnate1 - Apr 4, 2024 - 2:13pm
Won't Load Full Page - Just Music (Canada)
- RPnate1 - Apr 4, 2024 - 2:13pm
Playlist Unwieldy
- darrenthackeray - Apr 4, 2024 - 12:09pm
|
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.
|
|
|