Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Very

6 (50%)

Some

4 (33.3%)

Not sure

0 (0%)

Not really

1 (8.3%)

Not in the slightest

1 (8.3%)

Total Members Voted: 11

Voting closed: February 15, 2022, 10:51:36 AM

[Yankguy1]

That you continue to pass off others' words as your own is between you and your God.  I'm not going to encourage it by engaging with you.  Sorry.

I'm sure you mean well.

[Hairy Lime]

You haven't researched anything.  Because you're a thief.

If I thought he knew what standing is I might answer him. But he would not understand anything not written out for him.

The SCOTUS opinions are written out for everyone.  I read them.

"Apes don't read philosophy"

"Yes they do, Otto. They just don't understand it."

[Espnthree]

That you continue to pass off others' words as your own is between you and your God.  I'm not going to encourage it by engaging with you.  Sorry.

I'm sure you mean well.

Fine by me.
You never add to any debate anyway,

[LarryB!]

The primary legal battle in Biden v. Nebraska was not about student loan debt, but rather the authority of the executive branch to use vague wording in laws to enact sweeping reforms without the need for congressional action.

 But I see no reason to argue it with a thief.

I understand your reluctance to discuss the facts of the case, especially in light of  a 6-3 decision that destroyed your arguments.
Maybe you should invite Nancy to lunch so she could explain it to you.

The only thing the Supreme Court decision destroyed was the myths that Conservative justices are not activists and are strict constructionists. But smart people already knew that.

The Court created no new law, it upheld the HEROES ACT as written by CONGRESS( See Article One of  the Constitution)
Biden tried to create a new law, the court said he did not have that power.
So did Pelosi.

AsRed likes to say, Oh those pesky polls

ABCnews Ipsos poll

Does SCOTUS rule on basis of the law or partisan political views

Politics Views.  53%

The Law           33%

Do not know      14%

[Oilcandide]

It also appears that the concept of standing has been relegated to the ashcan of history.  At least by this Court.  In this case.

I appreciate not arguing with thieves, but help me out here if you can?  Is this the form of legal standing that is sometimes filed under "chilling effects?"   

And, full disclosure, I barely grasp the major questions exception in B v Neb but am going to do the research on that.  Wish me luck. 

Fish Called Wanda quotes also welcomed.

[Espnthree]

 

You haven't researched anything.  Because you're a thief.

If I thought he knew what standing is I might answer him. But he would not understand anything not written out for him.

The SCOTUS opinions are written out for everyone.  I read them.

"Apes don't read philosophy"

"Yes they do, Otto. They just don't understand it."

Swing and a miss. You do that a lot.

I bet YankGuy does not realize you stole those lines from a copyrighted movie.
But thanks for playing.

[Espnthree]

It also appears that the concept of standing has been relegated to the ashcan of history.  At least by this Court.  In this case.

I appreciate not arguing with thieves, but help me out here if you can?  Is this the form of legal standing that is sometimes filed under "chilling effects?"   

And, full disclosure, I barely grasp the major questions exception in B v Neb but am going to do the research on that.  Wish me luck. 

Easiest research you will ever do.

Yank Guy s non responses should have tipped you off.

[Oilcandide]

The Court created no new law, it upheld the HEROES ACT as written by CONGRESS( See Article One of  the Constitution)
Biden tried to create a new law, the court said he did not have that power.

Biden didn't try to create a new law.  He asked the Secretary to do what secretaries can do and have done, which is modify or waive parts of existing regulatory legislation , in response to emergencies and special cases of widespread hardship. 

If you want to argue an exception to that procedure of the Secretary, then do so in your own words, pal.  But waving your hands at SCOTUS and making up shit about Biden is not argument. 

[Yankguy1]

You really are a stupid human being.  You're a thief because you pass somebody's else words and thoughts as you own.  If you think that Oilcan is doing that with his movie quotes that everybody knows then you're even dumber than I assumed.

I'd love to help you out with your standing question, Oilcan, but doing so would mean that I'm indirectly arguing with Red.  I can't do that. 

[Oilcandide]

I bet YankGuy does not realize you stole those lines from a copyrighted movie.
But thanks for playing.

Boz put them in quotes in a way making clear they were lines of dialogue, and am fairly certain he knew both Yank and I would recognize them as AFCW lines. 

[Espnthree]

You really are a stupid human being.  You're a thief because you pass somebody's else words and thoughts as you own.  If you think that Oilcan is doing that with his movie quotes that everybody knows then you're even dumber than I assumed.

I'd love to help you out with your standing question, Oilcan, but doing so would meant that I'm directly arguing with Red.  I can't do that.

You need serious counseling. I never said a word about OiLCAN MOVIE QUOTES.

[Espnthree]

I bet YankGuy does not realize you stole those lines from a copyrighted movie.
But thanks for playing.

Boz put them in quotes in a way making clear they were lines of dialogue, and am fairly certain he knew both Yank and I would recognize them as AFCW lines.

except of course that is beside the point and stupid.
It was dialogue from whom?

[Espnthree]

The Court created no new law, it upheld the HEROES ACT as written by CONGRESS( See Article One of  the Constitution)
Biden tried to create a new law, the court said he did not have that power.

Biden didn't try to create a new law.  He asked the Secretary to do what secretaries can do and have done, which is modify or waive parts of existing regulatory legislation , in response to emergencies and special cases of widespread hardship. 

If you want to argue an exception to that procedure of the Secretary, then do so in your own words, pal.  But waving your hands at SCOTUS and making up shit about Biden is not argument.

Quite the contrary.
It is the Whole argument.
See Nancy Pelosi.
Or
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-506_nmip.pdf
Please take notes.

[Yankguy1]

You really are a stupid human being.  You're a thief because you pass somebody's else words and thoughts as you own.  If you think that Oilcan is doing that with his movie quotes that everybody knows then you're even dumber than I assumed.

I'd love to help you out with your standing question, Oilcan, but doing so would meant that I'm directly arguing with Red.  I can't do that.

You need serious counseling. I never said a word about OiLCAN MOVIE QUOTES.

You know what?  I made a mistake.  And I admit it.   It was Harry's quoting a movie.    If that's the kind of mistake the requires counseling, bring it on.

[Espnthree]

You really are a stupid human being.  You're a thief because you pass somebody's else words and thoughts as you own.  If you think that Oilcan is doing that with his movie quotes that everybody knows then you're even dumber than I assumed.

I'd love to help you out with your standing question, Oilcan, but doing so would meant that I'm directly arguing with Red.  I can't do that.

You need serious counseling. I never said a word about OiLCAN MOVIE QUOTES.

You know what?  I made a mistake.  And I admit it.   It was Harry's quoting a movie.    If that's the kind of mistake the requires counseling, bring it on.

No, that is for you to do.
Let your conscience be your guide.
Oh, wait.
Does nihilism account for that?