tvc184

3:43 Nederland 42-20

65 yard touchdown pass for Jacksonville. 9:43 42-13

With 10:30 left in game, the Jacksonville announcer says... it is starting to look dim for Jacksonville. And while typing this, Nederland makes 44 yard touchdown run. 42-6

35-6 Nederland on pick 6.

Thanks. I have been doing this for almost 37 years and I teach at Lamar in Beaumont as a side. Mostly I try to stay unemotional so it does not matter what my political opinion is, I have to go by what the courts have ruled. I do not change my stance just to make an argument. I don’t always agree but they have yet to ask for my opinion. 😀

Actually most of it will not be irrelevant because 99.9% of cases are still handle by the lower courts. AND.... with RBG gone it is a 5-3 split But thanks for playing…

Yes, it is a corrupt system. It is not corrupt because a lawyer might be doing something illegal but it is morally corrupt because it potentially forces the innocent to pay large settlements If this was done in criminal law then people would be outraged. If an officer wrote you a speeding ticket then you have the right to contest it in court and appeal it if possible all the way to the SC. If you win then that is it. You have to pay your lawyer but many attorneys will take traffic ticket cases fairly cheaply. But what if we did this… An officer writes you a speeding ticket and you can plea guilty for $150 or you can plead not guilty and pay $2000. That is in effect what many lawsuits do with deep pockets.

About 99.99% (or more) of cases are left to the lower courts. If you think that the Supreme Court come here over a million cases a year, you are mistaken.

I have never heard the 14th amendment called legal thin air but you’re entitled to your opinion. As far as your argument saying that there is no law passed by a legislative body, it does not matter and I do not even understand that argument. Your premise is that no SCOTUS rulings are valid because none of their rulings then go to the Senate and House for confirmation. The ruling stand on their own. It makes no sense to say there’s no legislation because it needs to be none. SCOTUS rules on constitutionality. When they said the police have to read a list of warnings when they interrogate you if you were in custody, that is not legislative law. It does not matter if the state passes that. SCOTUS made the statement to all the courts below them that if the police did not follow those rules and the confession was unconstitutional and not valid. What legislative action are you looking for? if you’re only point is to say that the Supreme Court it’s not a legislative body, I agree. The Constitution does not require them to be.

Yeah, in this highly charged political climate, you could definitely have some nullification where I’m sure some jurors simply might not like the law… Even though it is the law and constitutional.

And geez..... Back to back legal threads. 😂😀😂

I just wonder who ACB will have come forward and claim that she sexually molested them. On a (much) more serious note, if they can get another true conservative to the Supreme Court, it will shake up the rulings for a potentially the next 10 years and up to two decades, depending on the next election.

It is funny that some of the Democrats will talk about hypocrisy in this case. Four years ago RBG basically said that it was the right thing to do to nominate and go to the Senate. When it was her seat on the line, her supposed last statement was to not go by her statement from 4 years ago.

There have been eight or less members of the court before and it is not a crisis. It’s just not a good way to do business. If there is a tie vote then the lower court decision stands because it was not overturned.

Uhhh.... The opposition party is required to hold a vote? I missed that part of the constitution…

There almost is always a settlement. That is the problem with the legal system. You can pay off someone for about a third the price then you could pay to fight it and we are in court. If your homeowner’s insurance defended you while you were being sued and told you that it would cost $100,000 in legal fees with years of depositions and court filings but you would win the case or you could settle out of court for $30,000… Which is the expedient answer? The deep pockets insurance company is going to pay the $30,000 settlement, the lawyer for the plaintiff will get $10,000 of that and in the meantime the person being defended might have been 100% within the civil law but the insurance company has to put up the $30,000 because it is much cheaper just to pay the sometimes (extortion) money. Yes, there are absolutely valid cases but the system is corrupted enough that even if you’re completely correct, you will still likely have to pay either in unbelievable legal fees to prove your innocence of settle out of court just save the money.

I wish... 😀

Here you go. And yes I just looked it back up it is the 14th amendment. Here you go. And yes I just looked it back up and it is the 14th amendment. I like the Oyez site because it cuts a 15 or 20 page document/explanation down to a simple question and a brief answer. In this link you can find what the Supreme Court says is constitutional and what may be modified by the states. Yes it is law. [Hidden Content]

You want me to explain how laws work? I really don’t mind but I thought you might have a grasp at this stage of life. Medical procedures are within the jurisdiction of a state. If the state allows third trimester abortions, that is the law in that state. I really don’t feel like looking up the laws in all 50 states so that you’ll know what each says. Feel free to use Google. The Supreme Court issues caselaw, not statutory law. They rule on what is constitutional and not constitutional. They do not write statutory or criminal law although some people often say that they do… I guess apparently that is because they do not understand the function. A woman sued saying that her constitutional rights were violated, I believe under the 14th amendment. The Supreme Court agreed with her up to a point of viability of the fetus. What that means is a state cannot restrict her right to an abortion for a child who is not viable outside of the womb. Later stages it is up to the states and like I said, each state has its own rules. Is that the written law that you’re looking for because you asked what law was passed and it was passed in 50 different states which set their own limits, per the 10th amendment to the constitution and Roe v. Wade. Prior to Roe v. Wade I believe that most states denied abortions. The Supreme Court came in and said that was unconstitutional within limits. Yes Roe v. Wade is law. It is caselaw telling a government when it cannot do.

Yeah. Also my notification bell is planted over my Home page icon. i can’t seem to win...

The one that says the governor can issue criminal mandates. In this case from what I have read in current sites (and I believe that I made the same comment here or another forum), she was asked to leave the school property for not wearing a mask, she refused. She was trespassing. She then resisted arrest. Going by Texas law only as an example of what Ohio law may be similar to, you cannot even resist an unlawful arrest. So who would convict this woman? Any juror following the law. If it was in Texas, yes the mask is a criminal law.

You’ve gone from masks to abortion. okayyyyy..... Roe v. Wade said that a child that is not viable outside of the womb is a female right to privacy. Once the child can live outside of the womb, it is no longer a right. What you actually have is states making their own laws on abortion, not the federal government. Again, states’ rights. So I again assuming that you want Pelosi and Schumer telling Texas what to do

You say a constitutionalist but SCOTUS ruled in favor of the 10th Amendment on states’ rights. You are for overturning that and have them let the federal dictate all of the rules? All of the rulings that I have seen in reference to health have deferred these decisions to the state. I am assuming that you wanted RBG, Sotomayor and Kagan speakiy for you....

The ones following the law.

That’s the way I read “never”. Just sayin’.....