Radioactive Ass: BMulligan: So in other words, then, no? I thought not. That's because, your disingenuous twaddle notwithstanding, there is literally no other such Supreme Court opinion.That call was quite cromulent. By saying that this case should not be used as a precedent allowed for future cases with similar issues to be fast tracked to the USSC in the future like this one was should they occur. Otherwise some lower level judge might be able to cite it and derail the process according to his or her own political prejudices. By making it clearly beyond citation the USSC reserved the sole right (properly in my opinion) to settle disputes over federal elections and conflicting state or appellate level judgements.
EyeballKid: She and any other Supreme Court justices responsible for the verdicts in Bush v. Gore or Citizens United are fully deserving of a loud and hearty "f*ck you" from anybody who comes in contact with them.
BMulligan: Really. And that doesn't seem to you like a bit of the old "ultra vires"?
cman: EyeballKid: She and any other Supreme Court justices responsible for the verdicts in Bush v. Gore or Citizens United are fully deserving of a loud and hearty "f*ck you" from anybody who comes in contact with them.What about Kelo?
BMulligan: Cataholic: BMulligan: Cataholic: Lochsteppe: pute kisses like a man: FTA:Legal experts have noted that the Court has not cited the decision even once since it was made, which some interpret as a testament to its soundness.to people really interpret that as soundness?I'm a lawyer, and I like to go after cases that are cited like crazy. To me, the fact that a case is ubiquitously cited gives it more credit than some one hit wonder. (so long as the citations are not negative)Didn't the SC explicitly preface the whole thing with (paraphrasing) "Don't ever cite this for anything else, but..."?Appellate courts do this all the time. The vast majority of the rulings and opinions they make are designated as "not to be published." Although you will see a lawyer trot one of those out from time to time in order to make a point, it's very bad form to try and use them as any sort of precedent. The Supreme Court doesn't have the luxury of going the "not to be published" route because all of their opinions are published. However, they sometimes get cases which haven't been thoroughly fleshed out through the traditional appellate process and as a result will try to narrowly tailor the decision. They aren't saying "this is a bad decision," but rather, "this situation isn't a good case for us to be making new law....but we have to rule on it anyway."Perhaps you could point to an example of another such Supreme Court opinion?With a few spare hours and my Westlaw account...I probably could. None of them would be worded as bluntly as this one, but the sentiment is there. Sometimes it would manifest itself in a terse per curium opinion. As the saying goes, "bad cases make bad law."So in other words, then, no? I thought not. That's because, your disingenuous twaddle notwithstanding, there is literally no other such Supreme Court opinion.
El Pachuco: There is a near-zero chance that Gore would have used 9/11 as a pretext for the US invasion of Iraq.
jigger: El Pachuco: There is a near-zero chance that Gore would have used 9/11 as a pretext for the US invasion of Iraq.Half or more of the Democratic Party was on board with invasion and for the very reasons of WMD and ties to terrorism. I don't see why Gore would have gone against the prevailing winds in this situation.
nekom: It doesn't really make much difference, as far as I've seen no one has ever been able to even manufacture a Gore victory in Florida, even those with a mind set to do just that. Under the system in place at the time, and yes the SCOTUS was part of that system, Bush won. There really is no other way to spin that. Now if you want to argue that the electoral college is stupid, I fully agree with that, but it IS what we have, for some reason.
Can't get enough Fark in your life? Try
More threads. More community. More Farking.
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Nov 24 2017 12:53:59
Runtime: 0.376 sec (376 ms)