Serious Question for Leftists

Serious Question for Leftists...

There are literally thousands of judicial decisions out there, by left-leaning judges, who decided cases based on "warm-and-fuzzy" rather than the law.

I'd like citations of right-leaning judges twisting the interpretation of the law.

Really!

No fuzzy-mouthed statements of your own opinion, quote me real judicial decisions.

Thanks! ...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson, CTO                            |    mens     |
| Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jim Thompson
Loading thread data ...

1985 NY Fed vs. TX State. The purpose was to protect NY based Texaco business. So, i guess it qualify as right-leaning action.

formatting link

Reply to
linnix

That's just a TRO. What I was "hoping" for was some citation of a right-leaner judge meddling in something forbidden by the Constitution. ...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson, CTO                            |    mens     |
| Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jim Thompson

Yes, the SC said NY judge was meddling in TX state action, forbidden by C.

Reply to
linnix

AFAIK ALL state actions can be appealed to Federal Courts ?? ...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson, CTO                            |    mens     |
| Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jim Thompson

ion

co

...

No, first to state SC, then US SC. The US SC said lower Fed and Appeal Courts had no business meddling in state judiciary systems. It was unfair for the trial to be in TX or NY. It should have been done in CA, where getty was based. But the Texaco legal team should have done that much earlier.

Reply to
linnix

=A0 =A0 ...Jim Thompson

=A0 =A0| =A0 =A0mens =A0 =A0 |

=A0 | =A0 =A0 et =A0 =A0 =A0|

=A0|

=A0 =A0 =A0 |

Bush v Gore

Reply to
Richard Henry

(JT's brain-dead inclusion of alt.binaries.schematics.electronic on the To: line in a text-only post removed.)

Antonin Scalia claims to be just following the law but if you go over his decisions one by one, you'll see ideology deeply embedded in the pattern.

The full personhood of corporations: The Long March of corporate-friendly SCOTUS decisions dates back to 1886. [1]

formatting link
culminating in unlimited spending on political campaigns without any transparency required.
formatting link
. . I used to be a Leftist. Now I'm a Radical Far Leftist. Capitalism has reverted to a feudalistic state; if you're not the lord of the manor, you're just another serf; the Middle is disappearing and the serf class expands daily. Think you are immune? Guess again. The top 0.01% want ALL of the wealth. It stopped being about what you could *buy* a long time ago. Now it's just a dick-measuring contest and a power grab and they won't stop until it's a complete oligarchy. . . [1] It was actually a clerk who slipped in the personhood provision; the justices, however, ate it up with a spoon when they saw it.

Reply to
JeffM

Yes, well, nice try but the left has answered that question a thousand times on myriad 'talking head' programs and it's 'any decision they don't like' because that's their nonsensical sophist 'definition' of 'activism' which, in turn, is part and parcel of their favorite tactics of simply redefining everything and declaring false equivalencies.

Reply to
flipper

=A0 =A0 ...Jim Thompson

=A0 =A0| =A0 =A0mens =A0 =A0 |

=A0 | =A0 =A0 et =A0 =A0 =A0|

=A0|

=A0 =A0 =A0 |

The Bybee torture memo certainly has to be up there in twisted logic.

formatting link

And of course you failed to produce evidence of so-called left leaning judges doing what they feel rather than obey the constitution.

Any particular reason why you send text to a binaries group. Do you know the difference between a text and binary file?

Reply to
miso

[snip]

IMNSHO: No treatment of a liberal should be considered "torture" ;-)

"In a dissent, Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the majority justices adopted an excessively permissive reading of federal immigration law in authorizing the Arizona statute.

Federal immigration law bars states from imposing civil or criminal sanctions on those who hire illegal immigrants. But it allows the states to adopt licensing regulations related to the employment of illegal immigrants."

Arizona's law IS a "licensing law".

====

How about dumbshit judge "Sumi"? I'll not tell you what that judge did, figuring you're too ignorant to know on your own :-)

====

I could go on for hours.

What? Binary group lurkers can't read text ?:-)

If you would get your nose out of your own butt hole you might smell the roses ;-) ...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson, CTO                            |    mens     |
| Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jim Thompson

=A0 =A0 ...Jim Thompson

=A0 =A0| =A0 =A0mens =A0 =A0 |

=A0 | =A0 =A0 et =A0 =A0 =A0|

=A0|

=A0 =A0 =A0 |

Immigration is a federal issue, plain and simple. To interpret the law otherwise means the judge is an activist.

Now excuse me while I mail Bernie Sanders some free speech, er I mean money.

Reply to
miso

I can't tell you the case numbers, but there were two guys in Texas, both charged with pulling the trigger in a murder case. Went to trial separately. First guy got convicted, second guy's lawyer said "you've proved that my client's finger wasn't on the trigger, you can't say that again". No go -- judge let it happen, then it was upheld. IIRC, all the way to the Supreme Court.

Two guys. One bullet. One trigger. Two 1st-degree murder convictions, gained by putting the suspect's finger on the trigger. The SAME DA in both cases. One of those convictions was obviously bogus.

But that's OK -- no prosecuting attorneys or judges had _their_ rights diminished. Only the rest of us.

--
Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Tim Wescott

So, two guys get together and kill someone. Either one COULD and WOULD have pulled the trigger, but you say that, in reality, only one of them actually did it. But, are not both of them equally guilty under the law? If you can prove, to a reasonable doubt, that either of them did!

Charlie

Reply to
Charlie E.

Or get them on conspiracy, like they do with guys who hire hitmen.

Cheers! Rich

Reply to
Rich Grise

ions,

From a state where your public defender can sleep during your trial, but that doesn't count for a death sentence appeal.

Somebody please, mess with Texas.

Reply to
miso

How is that Right leaning? Favoring one OIL COMPANY vs. Another OIL COMPANY??

The best you could do was TWENTY SIX YEARS AGO?

Reply to
Greegor

So, that's the approach the DA should have taken. Not the obvious -- and obviously government sanctioned -- lie that _both_ of them, _separately_ shot _one_ fatal shot.

I'm all for putting the bad guys in jail, and in this case it was obvious that both fellows colluded to kill their victim. But letting the DA get away with his lie means that he can lie about _me_ or _you_ when we're completely innocent. Then unless we have barrels full of money we're going to go to jail or worse, and when they're done with us we won't have any money at all.

When we give up our liberty for security, we will find ourselves with neither.

--
Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Tim Wescott

And why, exactly, does wanting to live in a country where I can enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness make me a "leftist"?

--
Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Tim Wescott

That's a ridiculous strawman sophism because no one made any such claim.

Reply to
flipper

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.