Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Michigan passes bill allowing concealed weapons in schools, day care centers, stadiums, churches


  • Please log in to reply
521 replies to this topic

#511 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 21 December 2012 - 11:22 AM

I don't need to show you where it has been.

If Obama replaces the aforementioned conservative judges who were in the majority of those opinions with typical views of liberalism and textualism, stare decisis will not be emphasised, and gun control laws will not be reversed.

If practicality and how these judges issue rulings is something that you will continue to ignore, then be my guest, historical significance of overturning is moot to those sitting judges without respect for precedence, as has been seen in the more recent Texas sodomy law case. There is no reason to believe that replacing Kennedy, Thomas, or Scalia, with a similar type of Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, or Sotomayor, will result in the same ruling as Heller. If you believe this to be the case, and they would rule the same as Heller, you need more studying the way judges interpret law. I'm not even a lawyer and I see this quite clearly.

So you have no evidence beyond fantasy that this would happen. Good to know,

I am quite aware of how judges interpret law. You... not so much.

Unlike you I am a lawyer and specialized in constitutional law academically (both degrees) and in practise.

You are a perfect example of the old maxim that a little knowledge (and as you have so clearly demonstrated so very little knowledge on this subject) is a dangerous thing.

As always lighting the path for the uninformed.

Posted Image
  • 1
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#512 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 21 December 2012 - 11:24 AM

Those statistics don't show what happens the majority of the time when gangs use guns against civilians for intimidation and don't actually shoot anyone.

Or all the instances where guns weren't a factor at all.

Remember, down there there's a better than even chance that muggings, holdups, carjackings, swarmings etc are carried out by gang members.

I prefer to deal with facts and statistics of actual incidents divorced from fantasy..
  • 1
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#513 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,548 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 21 December 2012 - 11:44 AM

So you have no evidence beyond fantasy that this would happen. Good to know,

I am quite aware of how judges interpret law. You... not so much.

Unlike you I am a lawyer and specialized in constitutional law academically (both degrees) and in practise.

You are a perfect example of the old maxim that a little knowledge (and as you have so clearly demonstrated so very little knowledge on this subject) is a dangerous thing.

As always lighting the path for the uninformed.

Posted Image

If it hasn't occurred yet to you, I'm not impressed.. what you deal with is not a science any more than my management is.

Judges can find enough other case law, and interpretation of constitutional law, to judge in any which way they see fit. While there is a standard, the standard is not set in stone whatsoever in regard to whether or not a judge is seated.

And since it won't get through your head about precedence and the specific people I mentioned, these people did not uphold precedence on one of the biggest landmark US cases:

http://en.wikipedia....wrence_v._Texas
Majority Kennedy, joined by Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer

Who do I see? Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, and Stevens.. Souter and Stevens replaced with like-minded Sotomayor and Kagan. Amazing, isn't it?

Kennedy went with guns in the Heller case, but that also was not precedent given gun control was widely accepted before then.

I can show you even further how judges, especially on the left, do not respect precedent much anymore, but the effort I feel is wasteful since you're so full of yourself and in typical lawyer fashion cannot admit to being wrong. I hope you can find a maxim to clutch that might be helpful for you in this regard.

Edited by zaibatsu, 21 December 2012 - 11:47 AM.

  • 0

#514 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,253 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 21 December 2012 - 12:07 PM

I can show you even further how judges, especially on the left, do not respect precedent much anymore, but the effort I feel is wasteful since you're so full of yourself and in typical lawyer fashion cannot admit to being wrong. I hope you can find a maxim to clutch that might be helpful for you in this regard.



This is the absolute definition of irony.

You have a differing opinion from that of virtually the entire board and ignore the overwhelming statistical evidence to the contrary, yet you continually trot out this laughable "You're so full of yourself, you can't admit you're wrong" garbage.

In this particular case, your own inflated ego has you telling an actual lawyer that your knowledge of the legal system trumps his.

Since you are so knowledgable about most things, I'm going to assume that you'tr familiar with the "Pot, meet kettle" maxim.....
  • 3
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#515 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,548 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 21 December 2012 - 12:12 PM

This is the absolute definition of irony.

You have a differing opinion from that of virtually the entire board and ignore the overwhelming statistical evidence to the contrary, yet you continually trot out this laughable "You're so full of yourself, you can't admit you're wrong" garbage.

In this particular case, your own inflated ego has you telling an actual lawyer that your knowledge of the legal system trumps his.

Since you are so knowledgable about most things, I'm going to assume that you'tr familiar with the "Pot, meet kettle" maxim.....

Nowhere am I saying my wisdom of law trumps his, however, if things are done a certain way, without respect for precedence, it's a complete red herring to quote one specific little niche of important rulings where precedence was kept. This is the type of nitpicking that lawyers do in attempt to win cases. I don't employ this type of logic, of which Wetcoaster hilariously feels is inferior. On the other hand, I have shown (which you gleefully ignore) that sitting judges do NOT respect precedence, so why would precedence be respected here when the case inevitably comes full circle, especially under the logical conditions that one of the conservative judges gets replaced with a liberal one? If you're going to jump in an argument you should focus on the argument and not kissing a poster's *** because you don't like who he is responding to. But what I'm asking for is an actual change to your posting habit, so what am I thinking.. carry on.

Edited by zaibatsu, 21 December 2012 - 12:14 PM.

  • 0

#516 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 21 December 2012 - 12:32 PM

Nowhere am I saying my wisdom of law trumps his, however, if things are done a certain way, without respect for precedence, it's a complete red herring to quote one specific little niche of important rulings where precedence was kept. This is the type of nitpicking that lawyers do in attempt to win cases. I don't employ this type of logic, of which Wetcoaster hilariously feels is inferior. On the other hand, I have shown (which you gleefully ignore) that sitting judges do NOT respect precedence, so why would precedence be respected here when the case inevitably comes full circle, especially under the logical conditions that one of the conservative judges gets replaced with a liberal one? If you're going to jump in an argument you should focus on the argument and not kissing a poster's *** because you don't like who he is responding to. But what I'm asking for is an actual change to your posting habit, so what am I thinking.. carry on.

This is not a niche.

Constitutional interpretation is quite different from other areas of law. You appear to be blissfully ignorant of this most basic fact. The Supreme Court moves very slowly on constitutional issues because of its import and while it can overrule itself that is quite rare and certainly not in compressed time frames.

As I pointed out above:

That would be a first - SCOTUS reversing a major constitutional decision in less than 50 years. You know that old saying... the chances f that happening are slim and none and slim has long since left the building.


And:

If you do not agree please show me where SCOTUS has overruled itself on a major constitutional decision within decades of the impugned ruling.

In the case of the Second Amendment the time span was almost 70 years.


Your problem is that you employ no logic.
  • 1
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#517 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,548 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 21 December 2012 - 12:39 PM

This is not a niche.

Constitutional interpretation is quite different from other areas of law. You appear to be blissfully ignorant of this most basic fact. The Supreme Court moves very slowly on constitutional issues because of its import and while it can overrule itself that is quite rare and certainly not in compressed time frames.

As I pointed out above:

That would be a first - SCOTUS reversing a major constitutional decision in less than 50 years. You know that old saying... the chances f that happening are slim and none and slim has long since left the building.


And:


If you do not agree please show me where SCOTUS has overruled itself on a major constitutional decision within decades of the impugned ruling.

In the case of the Second Amendment the time span was almost 70 years.


Your problem is that you employ no logic.

You can sit there calling something a "fact" all you like, it does not change that judges from 70 years ago do not make rulings on things put before the court today. The link I provided showed sitting judges who do not follow stare decisis. The way judges from the court today interpret rulings is important, because if they do not employ stare decisis, which most do NOT anymore unless it conveniences their political ideology, the rulings from 70 years ago are completely fracking irrelevant, aren't they? Why yes, zaibatsu, they sure are. Thanks Wetcoaster for being a lawyer and showing you can in, fact, use logic when it doesn't best suit your argument.

Edited by zaibatsu, 21 December 2012 - 12:39 PM.

  • 0

#518 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 21 December 2012 - 03:42 PM

You can sit there calling something a "fact" all you like, it does not change that judges from 70 years ago do not make rulings on things put before the court today. The link I provided showed sitting judges who do not follow stare decisis. The way judges from the court today interpret rulings is important, because if they do not employ stare decisis, which most do NOT anymore unless it conveniences their political ideology, the rulings from 70 years ago are completely fracking irrelevant, aren't they? Why yes, zaibatsu, they sure are. Thanks Wetcoaster for being a lawyer and showing you can in, fact, use logic when it doesn't best suit your argument.

And you have failed to grasp the difference between interpreting an entrenched Constitution and how other laws are interpreted The process is quite different - Constitutional Law 101.

My knowledge base comes from some of the foremost constitutional lawyers and scholars who were my professors including J.J. (Hamish) Gow. QC, Brian R.D. Smith , QC (former AG of BC), The Honourable Ronald I. Cheffins, QC, (former Justice of Appeal of the Courts of Appeal for British Columbia and author of several books on constitutional law) , the dean of constituional scholars and lawyers William R. Lederman, QC (http://www.queensu.c...lliamralph.html ), noted civil libertarian, constitutional scholar, lawyer and former justice of the BC Suprem CourtThomas R. Berger, OC OBC, QC ( http://en.wikipedia....homas_R._Berger). etc.

And you?
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#519 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,548 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 21 December 2012 - 04:08 PM

And you have failed to grasp the difference between interpreting an entrenched Constitution and how other laws are interpreted The process is quite different - Constitutional Law 101.

My knowledge base comes from some of the foremost constitutional lawyers and scholars who were my professors including J.J. (Hamish) Gow. QC, Brian R.D. Smith , QC (former AG of BC), The Honourable Ronald I. Cheffins, QC, (former Justice of Appeal of the Courts of Appeal for British Columbia and author of several books on constitutional law) , the dean of constituional scholars and lawyers William R. Lederman, QC (http://www.queensu.c...lliamralph.html ), noted civil libertarian, constitutional scholar, lawyer and former justice of the BC Suprem CourtThomas R. Berger, OC OBC, QC ( http://en.wikipedia....homas_R._Berger). etc.

And you?

Once again, you believe that giving me your CV (I'm surprised you didn't use the word "facts") will shut me up, but no surprise you overlook it isn't either of us interpreting constitutional law in this case, we're discussing SCOTUS/higher court judges and their respect for precedence. You look at one single factor which is the second amendment alone (while citing constitutional law as a whole), which ignores virtually everything else. No amount of namecalling, resume citing, or holier-than-thou posts will make up for your inability to recognize the high court's dwindling respect for precedence and more importantly, sitting judges who actually make rulings today. If it was as unambiguous as you say there'd be no need for confirmation hearings (although to be fair, confirmation hearings didn't see the Souter effect coming).

Edited by zaibatsu, 21 December 2012 - 04:09 PM.

  • 0

#520 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 21 December 2012 - 05:38 PM

Once again, you believe that giving me your CV (I'm surprised you didn't use the word "facts") will shut me up, but no surprise you overlook it isn't either of us interpreting constitutional law in this case, we're discussing SCOTUS/higher court judges and their respect for precedence. You look at one single factor which is the second amendment alone (while citing constitutional law as a whole), which ignores virtually everything else. No amount of namecalling, resume citing, or holier-than-thou posts will make up for your inability to recognize the high court's dwindling respect for precedence and more importantly, sitting judges who actually make rulings today. If it was as unambiguous as you say there'd be no need for confirmation hearings (although to be fair, confirmation hearings didn't see the Souter effect coming).

You truly do not have the faintest clue about this subject.

How courts treat precedents is part and parcel of judicial interpretation and when dealing with the Constitution the rules for interpretation are quite different than for non-entrenched statutes.

It is a fact that SCOTUS has never reversed itself on a major constitutional issue even within several decades of the previous decision.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#521 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,548 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 21 December 2012 - 05:56 PM

You truly do not have the faintest clue about this subject.

How courts treat precedents is part and parcel of judicial interpretation and when dealing with the Constitution the rules for interpretation are quite different than for non-entrenched statutes.

It is a fact that SCOTUS has never reversed itself on a major constitutional issue even within several decades of the previous decision.

I just mentioned the Texas Sodomy law.. hello? That was 2003. :lol:

That was a major 14th amendment issue, and a slew of other amendments were touched upon as well dealing with a state's ability to control who a person has sex with in what way, and which ways the federal courts can limit state laws. This also had implications on a handful of other states which banned sodomy in general.

No surprise this isn't major because it doesn't agree with your statement.

Oh, and the justices that reversed it.. were not practicing stare decisis. They issued their own rulings based on their own subjective interpretation of constitutional amendments practicing textualism completely dismissing prior ruling on a state's sodomy law (Georgia). Using "entrenched" means nothing to me when a judge can invoke their subjective interpretation of any given amendment to justify a viewpoint.

Edited by zaibatsu, 21 December 2012 - 05:57 PM.

  • 0

#522 dudeone

dudeone

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 807 posts
  • Joined: 17-February 04

Posted 21 December 2012 - 07:22 PM

Amid Newtown tragedy, scam artists creep in

By By CHRISTINA REXRODE and ROBERT RAY | Associated Press – Wed, Dec 19, 2012

http://news.yahoo.co...-215747363.html

NEWTOWN, Conn. (AP) — The family of Noah Pozner was mourning the 6-year-old, killed in the Newtown school massacre, when outrage compounded their sorrow.

Someone they didn't know was soliciting donations in Noah's memory, claiming that they'd send any cards, packages and money collected to his parents and siblings. An official-looking website had been set up, with Noah's name as the address, even including petitions on gun control.

Noah's uncle, Alexis Haller, called on law enforcement authorities to seek out "these despicable people."

"These scammers," he said, "are stealing from the families of victims of this horrible tragedy."
It's a problem as familiar as it is disturbing. Tragedy strikes — be it a natural disaster, a gunman's rampage or a terrorist attack — and scam artists move in.

It happened after 9/11. It happened after Columbine. It happened after Hurricane Katrina. And after this summer's movie theater shooting in Aurora, Colo.

Sometimes fraud takes the form of bogus charities asking for donations that never get sent to victims. Natural disasters bring another dimension: Scammers try to get government relief money they're not eligible for.

"It's abominable," said Ken Berger, president and CEO of Charity Navigator, which evaluates the performance of charities. "It's just the lowest kind of thievery."

Noah Pozner's relatives found out about one bogus solicitation when a friend received an email asking for money for the family. Poorly punctuated, it gave details about Noah, his funeral and his family. It directed people to send donations to an address in the Bronx, one that the Pozners had never heard of.

It listed a New York City phone number to text with questions about how to donate. When a reporter texted that number Wednesday, a reply came advising the donation go to the United Way.

The Pozner family had the noahpozner.com website transferred to its ownership. Victoria Haller,
Noah's aunt, emailed the person who had originally registered the name. The person, who went by the name Jason Martin, wrote back that he'd meant "to somehow honor Noah and help promote a safer gun culture. I had no ill intentions I assure you."

Alexis Haller said the experience "should serve as a warning signal to other victims' families. We urge people to watch out for these frauds on social media sites."

Consumer groups, state attorneys general and law enforcement authorities call for caution about unsolicited requests for donations, by phone or email. They tell people to be wary of callers who don't want to answer questions about their organization, who won't take "no" for an answer, or who convey what seems to be an unreasonable sense of urgency.

"This is a time of mourning for the people of Newtown and for our entire state," Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen said in a statement this week. "Unfortunately, it's also a time when bad actors may seek to exploit those coping with this tragedy."

But scam artists know that calamity is fertile ground for profit, watered by the goodwill of strangers who want to help and may not be familiar with the cause or the people they're sending money to.

After the shootings at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo., scammers asked for credit card donations for victims' families. After the 9/11 attacks, the North American Securities Administrators Association warned investors to be wary of Internet postings encouraging them to invest in supposed anti-terrorist technologies.

In 2006, the FBI warned about an email widely circulated after the Sago, W.Va., mine explosion, which claimed to be from a doctor treating one of the survivors and asking for donations to cover medical bills.

"As was learned after the tragic events of 9/11/01, the tsunami disaster, and more recently with Hurricane Katrina, unscrupulous cyber criminals have shown the desire and means to exploit human emotion by attempting to defraud the public when they are perceived to be most vulnerable," the FBI said at the time.

This fall, the police in Aurora, Colo., accused a local woman of trying to profit off the deadly movie theater rampage by a gunman who killed 12 people. The woman told people that she was the caretaker for a little girl named Kadence, whose mother had died in the shooting. The police said the child was made up. The scam unraveled when a donor got a phone call from what seemed to be a woman imitating a child's voice.

When the government doled out disaster aid after Hurricane Katrina, scammers asked for money to rebuild houses they never lived in or to pay benefits for relatives who never existed.

The government later set up the National Center for Disaster Fraud to try to root out such scams in the federal relief programs administered after Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma. It has since expanded its mandate to other disasters.

The cases brought since then by the Justice Department sketch a colorful picture of fraud:
— A woman who filed for small-business disaster benefits after the 2010 Gulf Coast oil spill, even though she'd sold the business before the accident.

— A judge and a commissioner in Texas who, after Hurricane Ike, were accused of awarding debris removal contracts to a company in return for kickbacks. The judge also commandeered a 155-kilowatt generator meant for the county to power his convenience store, according to the government.

— A pastor who submitted inflated claims to a government-funded program that reimbursed groups sheltering Hurricane Katrina evacuees.

Bob Webster, spokesman for the NASAA, knows the sad pattern.

"We know cons try to cash in on headlines, and any who would even think about stooping to capitalize on the tragedy in Newtown are the lowest of the low," he said.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.