|
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend Bookmark this thread |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) |
HughMoran (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 04:34 PM Original message |
We're not doomed! (On DoJ appeals of DADT/DOMA) |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Spazito (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 04:47 PM Response to Original message |
1. Excellent read! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
pnwmom (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 04:49 PM Response to Original message |
2. So unless a favorable DADT decision is appealed and then upheld by SCOTUS |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
no limit (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 04:58 PM Response to Reply #2 |
6. lol. Actually that's not how it works. Right now her ruling is just as powerful as a SCOTUS ruling |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
pnwmom (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 05:01 PM Response to Reply #6 |
8. So you're disputing what the OP says? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
no limit (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 05:02 PM Response to Reply #8 |
9. I'm absolutely disputing it. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
HughMoran (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 05:11 PM Response to Reply #9 |
15. So you didn't read the article |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
no limit (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 05:13 PM Response to Reply #15 |
17. Your article is bullshit. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
HughMoran (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 05:15 PM Response to Reply #17 |
18. That's a very compelling argument |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
no limit (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 05:24 PM Response to Reply #18 |
24. I pointed my argument out to you in this thread below and in that other thread |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
treestar (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 06:16 PM Response to Reply #24 |
84. The first sentence of your second paragraph is simply untrue |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
no limit (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 06:17 PM Response to Reply #84 |
86. You're not a law student (atleast God I hope not). Stop pretending to be one |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
treestar (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 07:01 PM Response to Reply #86 |
107. You are making up a distinction that does not apply |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
treestar (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 05:07 PM Response to Reply #6 |
11. that is not how it works |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
no limit (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 05:10 PM Response to Reply #11 |
14. That is total bullshit. Federal courts are just that, federal. Their rulings apply to the country |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
treestar (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 05:29 PM Response to Reply #14 |
25. No, they only apply in their districts |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
no limit (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 05:31 PM Response to Reply #25 |
28. The link, if you had read it, describes how the federal court systems work |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
treestar (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 05:36 PM Response to Reply #28 |
36. No, I'm not confused |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
no limit (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 05:40 PM Response to Reply #36 |
40. Yes, you are confused. Your confusion is almost funny at this point |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
treestar (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 05:43 PM Response to Reply #40 |
46. You are wrong. I am not confused. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
no limit (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 05:47 PM Response to Reply #46 |
49. I guess you still haven't read the link I gave you? Fine, let me quote some things for you |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
treestar (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 06:06 PM Response to Reply #49 |
70. But the 94 districts are limited to their districts |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Name removed (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 06:08 PM Response to Reply #70 |
77. Deleted message |
joeybee12 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 05:41 PM Original message |
Yeah, you are wrong...you are saying things obviously not true.. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
treestar (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 05:44 PM Response to Original message |
48. Look in the mirror on that one |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
no limit (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 05:49 PM Response to Reply #48 |
51. Nobody is saying there are no federal districs. We are saying you dont know what that is |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
treestar (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 06:05 PM Response to Reply #51 |
68. No, you are. You think you understand it but you do not. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
no limit (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 06:06 PM Response to Reply #68 |
72. You do not understand what you post. THe links you posted say nothing of jurisdiction |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
treestar (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 06:08 PM Response to Reply #72 |
76. It's so basic! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
no limit (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 06:09 PM Response to Reply #76 |
80. What does what you just said have to do with what I am telling you? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
treestar (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 06:18 PM Response to Reply #80 |
89. Yeah, it's which courts you can bring which cases to |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
grantcart (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 05:49 PM Response to Reply #14 |
50. That district Judge has authority for his district. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
no limit (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 05:51 PM Response to Reply #50 |
53. How would another court in another district rule DADT to be constitutional? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
treestar (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 06:07 PM Response to Reply #53 |
73. If the issue had not reached another district's courts yet, it |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
no limit (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 06:11 PM Response to Reply #73 |
82. I asked you for specifics. Who is the plaintiff and what is his or her claim for damages? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
grantcart (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 06:18 PM Response to Reply #53 |
87. Not really sure if I understand your question |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
no limit (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 06:22 PM Response to Reply #87 |
90. The rumsfeld case you quoted is not about DADT |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
grantcart (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 06:57 PM Response to Reply #90 |
103. The Rumsfield case was about upholding the legality of the "Solomon Ammendment" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
no limit (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 07:04 PM Response to Reply #103 |
110. Again, the "Solomon Ammendment" has nothing to do with the constitutionality of DADT |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Spazito (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 06:07 PM Response to Reply #14 |
74. That is bullshit... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
no limit (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 06:14 PM Response to Reply #74 |
83. The quote you posted says exactly what I said |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Spazito (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 06:22 PM Response to Reply #83 |
91. You stated, without qualification, that a District Federal judge's ruling applied nationally... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
no limit (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 06:25 PM Response to Reply #91 |
93. Federal judge's ruilings DO apply nationally. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Spazito (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 06:37 PM Response to Reply #93 |
98. It seems you and the founding founding dean of the University of California, Irvine School of Law |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
no limit (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 06:40 PM Response to Reply #98 |
99. No, we are not in disagreement. Explain to me the disagreement? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Spazito (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 07:17 PM Response to Reply #99 |
114. I saw your thread, you have an opinion.... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
no limit (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 07:19 PM Response to Reply #114 |
115. I addressed this quote and I did read your link |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
pnwmom (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 04:50 PM Response to Original message |
3. Happy to be the 5th recommend. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
pnwmom (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 04:50 PM Response to Original message |
4. self-delete (dupe) |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
tularetom (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 04:52 PM Response to Original message |
5. Sometimes the complexity of reality demands more than a gut reaction |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
no limit (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 04:59 PM Response to Original message |
7. So a FEDERAL judge doesn't actually have any jurisdiction over the FEDERAL government? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
treestar (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 05:08 PM Response to Reply #7 |
12. A Central district of Calif. judge has no jurisdiction outside the |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
treestar (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 05:06 PM Response to Original message |
10. Thank you for introducing some sense into this debate! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
no limit (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 05:08 PM Response to Reply #10 |
13. Yeah, because if anything this OP just makes sense |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
treestar (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 05:30 PM Response to Reply #13 |
27. Inform the million lawyers in this country of this |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
no limit (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 05:33 PM Response to Reply #27 |
31. Lawyers don't need to be informed, they already know this. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
treestar (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 05:40 PM Response to Reply #31 |
39. Federal courts do not have jurisdiction over the whole country, |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Name removed (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 05:41 PM Response to Reply #39 |
42. Deleted message |
treestar (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 06:03 PM Response to Reply #42 |
67. . . . |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
no limit (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 06:05 PM Response to Reply #67 |
69. You just threw a whole bunch of shit out that doesn't in any way seem relevent |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
treestar (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 06:09 PM Response to Reply #69 |
79. They show there can be conflicts among the circuits |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
no limit (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 06:16 PM Response to Reply #79 |
85. One district's decision does not bind the others. I never said it did. Again, you are confused |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
HughMoran (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 08:03 PM Response to Reply #85 |
116. You have no way of knowing that "nor is there potential for conflict." |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
no limit (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 10:39 AM Response to Reply #116 |
122. You keep ignoring why I'm saying this. Yes, I have a way of knowing it |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
polmaven (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 09:18 AM Response to Reply #85 |
120. If one district decision |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
no limit (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 10:40 AM Response to Reply #120 |
123. Yes, if this case came up in another district you would need a higher court to step in |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
HughMoran (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 04:24 PM Response to Reply #120 |
127. Exactly |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Prism (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 05:13 PM Response to Original message |
16. What I love about these nonsense defenses |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joeybee12 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 05:16 PM Response to Reply #16 |
20. Agree...i want to rec your post and I now unrec this ridiculous OP...n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FreeState (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 05:18 PM Response to Reply #16 |
21. +1 |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
treestar (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 05:32 PM Response to Reply #16 |
29. There is absolutely nothing different going on here |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Name removed (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 05:34 PM Response to Reply #29 |
32. Deleted message |
Donald Ian Rankin (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 05:53 PM Response to Reply #16 |
56. I take it you're new to DU? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Prism (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 05:54 PM Response to Reply #56 |
58. Oh, trust |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
foxfeet (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 05:55 PM Response to Reply #16 |
61. Yet another poltergeist infestation. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
QC (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 06:56 PM Response to Reply #61 |
102. Is there an iPhone app now that signals whenever someone posts the word "gay"? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
foxfeet (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 01:32 PM Response to Reply #102 |
126. Yep, it's right next to the "Haunt" app in the iPhone store. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
grantcart (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 06:58 PM Response to Reply #16 |
104. Leading LGBT legal scholar disagrees with you: |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
donco6 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 10:41 PM Response to Reply #16 |
129. Jesus, no kidding. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
hendo (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 05:15 PM Response to Original message |
19. Unfortunately SCOTUS is an all or nothing |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
VMI Dem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 05:19 PM Response to Original message |
22. Unrec for bullshit. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ruggerson (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 05:20 PM Response to Original message |
23. This OP makes no sense |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joeybee12 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 05:29 PM Response to Reply #23 |
26. An armchair constitutional scholar... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
treestar (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 05:33 PM Response to Reply #23 |
30. It is error for a District Court to purport to cover anything world wide |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joeybee12 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 05:35 PM Response to Reply #30 |
33. Why? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
treestar (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 05:41 PM Response to Reply #33 |
41. Why would a ruling of a District Court in California affect anything happening |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Cerridwen (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 05:55 PM Response to Reply #41 |
59. See post #57. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ruggerson (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 05:35 PM Response to Reply #30 |
34. It's currently the law of the land because the statute has been found unconstitutional |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
treestar (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 05:41 PM Response to Reply #34 |
43. Only in that District |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ruggerson (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 05:55 PM Response to Reply #43 |
60. READ THE RULING |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FreeState (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 05:56 PM Response to Reply #43 |
63. Wrong - read the ruling |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
no limit (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 05:35 PM Response to Reply #30 |
35. Yes, federal distric courts do not have jurisdiction world wide. But they do country wide |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ruggerson (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 05:37 PM Response to Reply #35 |
37. Worldwide simply means all US servicemembers |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
pinboy3niner (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 05:50 PM Response to Reply #35 |
52. Okay, now I'm confused |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
no limit (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 05:53 PM Response to Reply #52 |
57. I was giving him a hard time on the "world wide" thing |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ruggerson (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 05:57 PM Response to Reply #57 |
64. exactly |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
no limit (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 05:59 PM Response to Reply #64 |
65. Yup, absolutely. And the misinfromation in this thread is kind of funny |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FreeState (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 06:08 PM Response to Reply #65 |
75. Its a pattern |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
grantcart (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 05:41 PM Response to Reply #23 |
44. lol well its very basic 101 Judge Phillips' ruling covers servicemembers worldwide |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
treestar (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 05:42 PM Response to Reply #44 |
45. Exactly say the 5th Circuit in Texas decides this law IS constitutional |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
no limit (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 05:44 PM Response to Reply #45 |
47. How could the 5th circuit in texas decide this law is constitutional |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
treestar (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 06:26 PM Response to Reply #47 |
94. Easily. Another plaintiff, this one in Texas, brings a case to a district |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Name removed (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 06:29 PM Response to Reply #94 |
96. Deleted message |
treestar (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 07:03 PM Response to Reply #96 |
109. The same claim that the Calif. plaintiffs made |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
no limit (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 07:09 PM Response to Reply #109 |
111. Why would they have plaintiffs in another district for a law that no longer exists? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
treestar (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 08:26 PM Response to Reply #111 |
117. It still exists outside the Central District of California |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
no limit (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 08:42 AM Response to Reply #117 |
119. Again, you are incapable of simple comprehension. They don't rule other districts |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
grantcart (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 05:52 PM Response to Reply #45 |
54. In your exhuberance you may have omitted a word or two because I can't quite |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ruggerson (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 05:59 PM Response to Reply #44 |
66. Who has standing to appeal this, grantcart? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
grantcart (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 06:06 PM Response to Reply #66 |
71. I am not trying to be difficult here but if you read the article he spells it out in |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ruggerson (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 06:18 PM Response to Reply #71 |
88. This isn't rocket science |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
grantcart (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 11:47 AM Response to Reply #88 |
125. As the author points out another judge reaching a different decision |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
HughMoran (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 10:35 PM Response to Reply #125 |
128. +1 |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
HughMoran (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 06:49 PM Response to Reply #71 |
101. Excellent post grant! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Catherina (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 05:39 PM Response to Original message |
38. Unrec'd as offensive propaganda n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
grantcart (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 06:59 PM Response to Reply #38 |
106. Well LGBT scholars disagree with you |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Catherina (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 07:14 PM Response to Reply #106 |
113. Woohoo Grantcart! Catch up please. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Cerridwen (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 05:53 PM Response to Original message |
55. Title 28, Part IV, Chapter 85 - DISTRICT COURTS; JURISDICTION |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
no limit (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 05:56 PM Response to Reply #55 |
62. Facts dont matter to some people here, they'll just tell you you're wrong |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Cerridwen (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 06:09 PM Response to Reply #62 |
78. I know. But those reading and not posting may learn. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Name removed (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 06:10 PM Response to Reply #78 |
81. Deleted message |
riderinthestorm (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 06:48 PM Response to Reply #78 |
100. I'm learning. Thanks for this conversation. I keep hitting refresh to see the updated dialogue |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Cerridwen (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 06:58 PM Response to Reply #100 |
105. Thank you for saying so. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ruggerson (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 06:23 PM Response to Reply #55 |
92. Please make this its own OP |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Stinky The Clown (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 06:28 PM Response to Reply #55 |
95. Hey you! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Cerridwen (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 06:30 PM Response to Reply #95 |
97. Hiya, sweetums! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
HughMoran (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 08:39 AM Response to Reply #95 |
118. Thanks for kicking |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
grantcart (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 07:02 PM Response to Reply #55 |
108. So its national until another District Judge disagrees and hands down |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Cerridwen (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-13-10 07:09 PM Response to Reply #108 |
112. So it will be the law of the land until your hypothetical happens... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bvar22 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 10:06 AM Response to Reply #112 |
121. Good point. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
grantcart (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-14-10 11:37 AM Response to Reply #112 |
124. Because as explaine it will slow down the appeal process and undermine a stronger |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) | Sat May 04th 2024, 08:09 AM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC