If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(USA Today)   The SCOTUS issues a sarcastic ruling, stating that the Justice Department cannot prosecute a "two-bit local assault" under the terms of a chemical weapons treaty   (usatoday.com) divider line 133
    More: Amusing, Chemical Weapons Convention, United States Solicitor General, Donald Verrilli, Paul Clement, Scalia, nonproliferation, treaty, appeals courts  
•       •       •

10620 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Jun 2014 at 4:20 PM (16 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



133 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-06-02 01:46:51 PM
 
2014-06-02 02:53:11 PM
"Any parent would be guilty of a serious federal offense - possession of a chemical weapon - when, exasperated by the children's repeated failure to clean the goldfish tank, he considers poisoning the fish with a few drops of vinegar," he said.

Um. What?
 
2014-06-02 03:08:05 PM

kronicfeld: "Any parent would be guilty of a serious federal offense - possession of a chemical weapon - when, exasperated by the children's repeated failure to clean the goldfish tank, he considers poisoning the fish with a few drops of vinegar," he said.

Um. What?


The idea being that the definition the prosecutors were using was so over-broad that it could apply to common household chemicals based merely on intent of the person possessing them.  It's a bit of hyperbole, but not that much.
 
2014-06-02 03:08:59 PM
Oh, and if you do decide to go that route, make sure you put some fries in the oven first, and use malt vinegar, not the white stuff.
 
2014-06-02 04:03:03 PM
The point people seem to be missing is that the hard right justices tried to use this to create a precedent for the SCOTUS to override ratification of a treaty their political party doesn't like.  They attempted to set the precedent for a partisan Court to be able to overturn any act, treaty or law passed or ratified by a legislature controlled by the party in opposition to the one that appointed the majority of justices.

Jesus Fark, people.  This is what your judicial system has come to.  Petty party squabbles.
 
2014-06-02 04:22:19 PM
dittybopper:

The idea being that the definition the prosecutors were using was so over-broad that it could apply to common household chemicals based merely on intent of the person possessing them.  It's a bit of hyperbole, but not that much.

I think the what is a bit more in reference to pet murder as parenting.
 
2014-06-02 04:24:56 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: The point people seem to be missing is that the hard right justices tried to use this to create a precedent for the SCOTUS to override ratification of a treaty their political party doesn't like.  They attempted to set the precedent for a partisan Court to be able to overturn any act, treaty or law passed or ratified by a legislature controlled by the party in opposition to the one that appointed the majority of justices.

Jesus Fark, people.  This is what your judicial system has come to.  Petty party squabbles.



Did they actually succeed at setting that precedent, or was it more "Limit your scope"?
 
2014-06-02 04:25:17 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: The point people seem to be missing is that the hard right justices tried to use this to create a precedent for the SCOTUS to override ratification of a treaty their political party doesn't like.  They attempted to set the precedent for a partisan Court to be able to overturn any act, treaty or law passed or ratified by a legislature controlled by the party in opposition to the one that appointed the majority of justices.

Jesus Fark, people.  This is what your judicial system has come to.  Petty party squabbles.


-1/10


It was a unanimous ruling wherein the Justices used a narrow scope to point out the utterly ludicrous route the Justice Department was going in order to prosecute someone.

The Justice Department was trying to apply the terms and scope of a treaty at a local matter that did not match the treaty's criteria.
 
2014-06-02 04:26:07 PM

kronicfeld: Um. What?


I got a wtf look on my face when reading that, too.  Kid won't listen, kill the pet.  Good parenting.  Great analogy.  Time for a drink.
 
2014-06-02 04:26:16 PM
static.giantbomb.com
 
2014-06-02 04:28:51 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: The point people seem to be missing is that the hard right justices tried to use this to create a precedent for the SCOTUS to override ratification of a treaty their political party doesn't like.  They attempted to set the precedent for a partisan Court to be able to overturn any act, treaty or law passed or ratified by a legislature controlled by the party in opposition to the one that appointed the majority of justices.

Jesus Fark, people.  This is what your judicial system has come to.  Petty party squabbles.


Well that'll hook people who didn't read the article or the decision or the rest of the thread
 
2014-06-02 04:29:09 PM

meat0918: Benevolent Misanthrope: The point people seem to be missing is that the hard right justices tried to use this to create a precedent for the SCOTUS to override ratification of a treaty their political party doesn't like.  They attempted to set the precedent for a partisan Court to be able to overturn any act, treaty or law passed or ratified by a legislature controlled by the party in opposition to the one that appointed the majority of justices.

Jesus Fark, people.  This is what your judicial system has come to.  Petty party squabbles.


Did they actually succeed at setting that precedent, or was it more "Limit your scope"?


Limit your scope. Hence the sarcasm.
 
2014-06-02 04:29:51 PM

kronicfeld: "Any parent would be guilty of a serious federal offense - possession of a chemical weapon - when, exasperated by the children's repeated failure to clean the goldfish tank, he considers poisoning the fish with a few drops of vinegar," he said.

Um. What?


(A) The law could possibly be used to prosecute people for crimes appearing more serious than the writers declared intent, and

(B) The chief justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America may be a bit of a sick f*ck.
 
2014-06-02 04:30:19 PM

Gary-L: It was a unanimous ruling wherein the Justices used a narrow scope to point out the utterly ludicrous route the Justice Department was going in order to prosecute someone.

The Justice Department was trying to apply the terms and scope of a treaty at a local matter that did not match the treaty's criteria.


That's what I thought at first too, but read on...

"It took the justices nearly seven months to release their ruling, most likely because three of them -- Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito -- wanted to go further and rule that the entire law used to prosecute Bond was unconstitutional. All three wrote separate opinions concurring in the result, but not Roberts' reasoning. "
 
2014-06-02 04:30:55 PM

Gary-L: Benevolent Misanthrope: The point people seem to be missing is that the hard right justices tried to use this to create a precedent for the SCOTUS to override ratification of a treaty their political party doesn't like.  They attempted to set the precedent for a partisan Court to be able to overturn any act, treaty or law passed or ratified by a legislature controlled by the party in opposition to the one that appointed the majority of justices.

Jesus Fark, people.  This is what your judicial system has come to.  Petty party squabbles.

-1/10


It was a unanimous ruling wherein the Justices used a narrow scope to point out the utterly ludicrous route the Justice Department was going in order to prosecute someone.

The Justice Department was trying to apply the terms and scope of a treaty at a local matter that did not match the treaty's criteria.


How is Benevolent trolling? This quote is right from the article:


"While the decision slapped the Obama administration for excessive prosecutorial zeal, it stopped short of what conservatives sought: a ruling that Congress' implementation of the chemical weapons treaty was unconstitutional. That would have represented a far greater restraint on federal powers."


Conservatives were now seeking to limit Federal powers. Yet when GWB was in office, Congress was more than happy to expand the Executive Office's powers.

 
2014-06-02 04:31:26 PM
When it's a unanimous ruling and several of the Justices write their own independent opinions agreeing with the ruling, you know they were probably giggling about you in the back room.
 
2014-06-02 04:32:10 PM
With a helpful picture of what a thumb might look like.
 
2014-06-02 04:32:17 PM
Well, it's all fun and games until someone burns their eye out.
 
2014-06-02 04:33:40 PM

redmid17: Benevolent Misanthrope: The point people seem to be missing is that the hard right justices tried to use this to create a precedent for the SCOTUS to override ratification of a treaty their political party doesn't like.  They attempted to set the precedent for a partisan Court to be able to overturn any act, treaty or law passed or ratified by a legislature controlled by the party in opposition to the one that appointed the majority of justices.

Jesus Fark, people.  This is what your judicial system has come to.  Petty party squabbles.

Well that'll hook people who didn't read the article or the decision or the rest of the thread


Perhaps you should read the article yourself before complaining other people didn't.
 
2014-06-02 04:33:59 PM
Way to give him the business!
 
2014-06-02 04:34:57 PM

Gary-L: Benevolent Misanthrope: The point people seem to be missing is that the hard right justices tried to use this to create a precedent for the SCOTUS to override ratification of a treaty their political party doesn't like.  They attempted to set the precedent for a partisan Court to be able to overturn any act, treaty or law passed or ratified by a legislature controlled by the party in opposition to the one that appointed the majority of justices.

Jesus Fark, people.  This is what your judicial system has come to.  Petty party squabbles.

-1/10


It was a unanimous ruling wherein the Justices used a narrow scope to point out the utterly ludicrous route the Justice Department was going in order to prosecute someone.

The Justice Department was trying to apply the terms and scope of a treaty at a local matter that did not match the treaty's criteria.


Good. Now let's see them biatchslap prosecutors for charging teens with child pornography for taking selfies.
 
2014-06-02 04:35:23 PM

Gary-L: Benevolent Misanthrope: The point people seem to be missing is that the hard right justices tried to use this to create a precedent for the SCOTUS to override ratification of a treaty their political party doesn't like.  They attempted to set the precedent for a partisan Court to be able to overturn any act, treaty or law passed or ratified by a legislature controlled by the party in opposition to the one that appointed the majority of justices.

Jesus Fark, people.  This is what your judicial system has come to.  Petty party squabbles.

-1/10


It was a unanimous ruling wherein the Justices used a narrow scope to point out the utterly ludicrous route the Justice Department was going in order to prosecute someone.

The Justice Department was trying to apply the terms and scope of a treaty at a local matter that did not match the treaty's criteria.


This is what I'm talking about.  You missed it entirely.

FTFA:It took the justices nearly seven months to release their ruling, most likely because three of them -- Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito -- wanted to go further and rule that the entire law used to prosecute Bond was unconstitutional.

Amid the cover of finding the case idiotic (and it was), the hard right Republican justices wanted to set a precedent whereby the SCOTUS can rule WAY beyond the actual case and overturn a treaty ratified over the heads of their Party.  For no reason other than their Party didn't like it.


meat0918: Did they actually succeed at setting that precedent, or was it more "Limit your scope"?


It was more, "STFU, stop blowing things out of proportion, and stop wasting our time."  Except for Scalia, Alito and Thomas, who tried to pull the same crap the TeaTards are pulling in the Legislature by holding up a decision in favour of trying to twist it to Party ends.
 
2014-06-02 04:35:26 PM
it'd wasn't sarcastic enough nor did it make fun of the tard who tried to use a treaty to prosecute some angry ex wife enough.
 
2014-06-02 04:36:22 PM

OtherLittleGuy: Gary-L: Benevolent Misanthrope: The point people seem to be missing is that the hard right justices tried to use this to create a precedent for the SCOTUS to override ratification of a treaty their political party doesn't like.  They attempted to set the precedent for a partisan Court to be able to overturn any act, treaty or law passed or ratified by a legislature controlled by the party in opposition to the one that appointed the majority of justices.

Jesus Fark, people.  This is what your judicial system has come to.  Petty party squabbles.

-1/10


It was a unanimous ruling wherein the Justices used a narrow scope to point out the utterly ludicrous route the Justice Department was going in order to prosecute someone.

The Justice Department was trying to apply the terms and scope of a treaty at a local matter that did not match the treaty's criteria.

Good. Now let's see them biatchslap prosecutors for charging teens with child pornography for taking selfies.


They ought to.  Absolutely.
 
2014-06-02 04:36:57 PM
FTFA: "While the decision slapped the Obama administration for excessive prosecutorial zeal..."

From another article: "Bond's lawyers lost that challenge, she went to trial, and she was convicted in 2007. Bond was sentenced to six years in prison, plus five years of supervised release."

No mention of Obama and his time machine.
 
2014-06-02 04:39:41 PM

Soup4Bonnie: kronicfeld: Um. What?

I got a wtf look on my face when reading that, too.  Kid won't listen, kill the pet.  Good parenting.  Great analogy.  Time for a drink.


Yeah. It sounds like that particular "Justice" is just revisiting what he did to his kids himself (in a Freudian-slip kinda way)!
 
2014-06-02 04:40:08 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: The point people seem to be missing is that the hard right justices tried to use this to create a precedent for the SCOTUS to override ratification of a treaty their political party doesn't like.  They attempted to set the precedent for a partisan Court to be able to overturn any act, treaty or law passed or ratified by a legislature controlled by the party in opposition to the one that appointed the majority of justices.

Jesus Fark, people.  This is what your judicial system has come to.  Petty party squabbles.


That's what you got out of a 9-0 ruling??

You are absolutely brainwashed...
 
2014-06-02 04:43:00 PM

skinink: Gary-L: Benevolent Misanthrope: The point people seem to be missing is that the hard right justices tried to use this to create a precedent for the SCOTUS to override ratification of a treaty their political party doesn't like.  They attempted to set the precedent for a partisan Court to be able to overturn any act, treaty or law passed or ratified by a legislature controlled by the party in opposition to the one that appointed the majority of justices.

Jesus Fark, people.  This is what your judicial system has come to.  Petty party squabbles.

-1/10


It was a unanimous ruling wherein the Justices used a narrow scope to point out the utterly ludicrous route the Justice Department was going in order to prosecute someone.

The Justice Department was trying to apply the terms and scope of a treaty at a local matter that did not match the treaty's criteria.

How is Benevolent trolling? This quote is right from the article:
"While the decision slapped the Obama administration for excessive prosecutorial zeal, it stopped short of what conservatives sought: a ruling that Congress' implementation of the chemical weapons treaty was unconstitutional. That would have represented a far greater restraint on federal powers."
Conservatives were now seeking to limit Federal powers. Yet when GWB was in office, Congress was more than happy to expand the Executive Office's powers.


Tried too being the key words.

If I got that upset every time someone "tried to" I would be in a constant state of cardiac arrest.
 
2014-06-02 04:43:28 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: FTFA:It took the justices nearly seven months to release their ruling, most likely because three of them -- Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito -- wanted to go further and rule that the entire law used to prosecute Bond was unconstitutional.


Scalia, Thomas and Alito were jackasses. Shocked, shocked I say.
 
2014-06-02 04:44:39 PM
government overreach?  i am shocked.
 
2014-06-02 04:44:50 PM

grumpfuff: redmid17: Benevolent Misanthrope: The point people seem to be missing is that the hard right justices tried to use this to create a precedent for the SCOTUS to override ratification of a treaty their political party doesn't like.  They attempted to set the precedent for a partisan Court to be able to overturn any act, treaty or law passed or ratified by a legislature controlled by the party in opposition to the one that appointed the majority of justices.

Jesus Fark, people.  This is what your judicial system has come to.  Petty party squabbles.

Well that'll hook people who didn't read the article or the decision or the rest of the thread

Perhaps you should read the article yourself before complaining other people didn't.


I did read it. It appears he is manufacturing fact from opinion.
 
2014-06-02 04:45:35 PM

GoldSpider: Gary-L: It was a unanimous ruling wherein the Justices used a narrow scope to point out the utterly ludicrous route the Justice Department was going in order to prosecute someone.

The Justice Department was trying to apply the terms and scope of a treaty at a local matter that did not match the treaty's criteria.

That's what I thought at first too, but read on...

"It took the justices nearly seven months to release their ruling, most likely because three of them -- Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito -- wanted to go further and rule that the entire law used to prosecute Bond was unconstitutional. All three wrote separate opinions concurring in the result, but not Roberts' reasoning. "


Wow.
 
2014-06-02 04:45:36 PM

Truther: skinink: Gary-L: Benevolent Misanthrope: The point people seem to be missing is that the hard right justices tried to use this to create a precedent for the SCOTUS to override ratification of a treaty their political party doesn't like.  They attempted to set the precedent for a partisan Court to be able to overturn any act, treaty or law passed or ratified by a legislature controlled by the party in opposition to the one that appointed the majority of justices.

Jesus Fark, people.  This is what your judicial system has come to.  Petty party squabbles.

-1/10


It was a unanimous ruling wherein the Justices used a narrow scope to point out the utterly ludicrous route the Justice Department was going in order to prosecute someone.

The Justice Department was trying to apply the terms and scope of a treaty at a local matter that did not match the treaty's criteria.

How is Benevolent trolling? This quote is right from the article:
"While the decision slapped the Obama administration for excessive prosecutorial zeal, it stopped short of what conservatives sought: a ruling that Congress' implementation of the chemical weapons treaty was unconstitutional. That would have represented a far greater restraint on federal powers."
Conservatives were now seeking to limit Federal powers. Yet when GWB was in office, Congress was more than happy to expand the Executive Office's powers.

Tried too being the key words.

If I got that upset every time someone "tried to" I would be in a constant state of cardiac arrest.


Idon;t get upset when someone tries to cut in front of me in the grocery store line.  I don't even get upset when a developer tries to destroy my local downtown by selling a line that's pure horseshiat.

I DO get upset when 3 SUPREME COURT JUSTICES "try to" completely subvert the law and the entire system of checks and balances for the gain of a political party.
 
2014-06-02 04:45:40 PM

Truther: skinink: Gary-L: Benevolent Misanthrope: The point people seem to be missing is that the hard right justices tried to use this to create a precedent for the SCOTUS to override ratification of a treaty their political party doesn't like.  They attempted to set the precedent for a partisan Court to be able to overturn any act, treaty or law passed or ratified by a legislature controlled by the party in opposition to the one that appointed the majority of justices.

Jesus Fark, people.  This is what your judicial system has come to.  Petty party squabbles.

-1/10


It was a unanimous ruling wherein the Justices used a narrow scope to point out the utterly ludicrous route the Justice Department was going in order to prosecute someone.

The Justice Department was trying to apply the terms and scope of a treaty at a local matter that did not match the treaty's criteria.

How is Benevolent trolling? This quote is right from the article:
"While the decision slapped the Obama administration for excessive prosecutorial zeal, it stopped short of what conservatives sought: a ruling that Congress' implementation of the chemical weapons treaty was unconstitutional. That would have represented a far greater restraint on federal powers."
Conservatives were now seeking to limit Federal powers. Yet when GWB was in office, Congress was more than happy to expand the Executive Office's powers.

Tried too being the key words.

If I got that upset every time someone "tried to" I would be in a constant state of cardiac arrest.


You don't think it matters, even a little?
 
2014-06-02 04:45:54 PM

Soup4Bonnie: kronicfeld: Um. What?

I got a wtf look on my face when reading that, too.  Kid won't listen, kill the pet.  Good parenting.  Great analogy.  Time for a drink.


Kill the wabbit?
 
2014-06-02 04:46:31 PM

Truther: Benevolent Misanthrope: The point people seem to be missing is that the hard right justices tried to use this to create a precedent for the SCOTUS to override ratification of a treaty their political party doesn't like.  They attempted to set the precedent for a partisan Court to be able to overturn any act, treaty or law passed or ratified by a legislature controlled by the party in opposition to the one that appointed the majority of justices.

Jesus Fark, people.  This is what your judicial system has come to.  Petty party squabbles.

That's what you got out of a 9-0 ruling??

You are absolutely brainwashed...


Again, read the thing.  The fact that they failed to twist the decision doesn't mean we should ignore it.
 
2014-06-02 04:46:47 PM
So no more whining about the Geneva Convention when someone tortures someone down at the station, OK?
 
2014-06-02 04:48:29 PM
Sometimes a dead goldfish is no laughing matter.

vcmike.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-06-02 04:48:49 PM

MisterTweak: kronicfeld: "Any parent would be guilty of a serious federal offense - possession of a chemical weapon - when, exasperated by the children's repeated failure to clean the goldfish tank, he considers poisoning the fish with a few drops of vinegar," he said.

Um. What?

(A) The law could possibly be used to prosecute people for crimes appearing more serious than the writers declared intent, and

(B) The chief justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America may be a bit of a sick f*ck.


It really doesn't make sense.

When it's so much easier to feed the goldfish to the cat.

And THAT doesn't violate an International Treaty.
 
2014-06-02 04:49:11 PM

SlothB77: government overreach?  i am shocked.


bush and his AG should back off a bit
 
2014-06-02 04:49:59 PM
A sarcastic ruling?

*slow clap* "Yeah, great argument, counselor. I'm *sure* a treaty meant to stop the spread and indiscriminate use of horrible things like mustard gas, sarin, chlorine gas, etc by non-state actors could apply to a jilted wife who sprayed what amounts to serious itching powder in a targeted assault.

"No, this really does seem like an appropriate use of Federal law enforcement resources - coming down HARD on an assault that resulted in a slightly burned thumb. You FBI guys must be just SO proud of yourselves for eliminating the criminal threat from doorknobs everywhere. Bra-farking-VO."
 
2014-06-02 04:50:02 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: The point people seem to be missing is that the hard right justices tried to use this to create a precedent for the SCOTUS to override ratification of a treaty their political party doesn't like.  They attempted to set the precedent for a partisan Court to be able to overturn any act, treaty or law passed or ratified by a legislature controlled by the party in opposition to the one that appointed the majority of justices.

Jesus Fark, people.  This is what your judicial system has come to.  Petty party squabbles.


Says the guy misinterpreting a judicial decision to feed his own ideological narrative.
 
2014-06-02 04:50:24 PM

redmid17: grumpfuff: redmid17: Benevolent Misanthrope: The point people seem to be missing is that the hard right justices tried to use this to create a precedent for the SCOTUS to override ratification of a treaty their political party doesn't like.  They attempted to set the precedent for a partisan Court to be able to overturn any act, treaty or law passed or ratified by a legislature controlled by the party in opposition to the one that appointed the majority of justices.

Jesus Fark, people.  This is what your judicial system has come to.  Petty party squabbles.

Well that'll hook people who didn't read the article or the decision or the rest of the thread

Perhaps you should read the article yourself before complaining other people didn't.

I did read it. It appears he is manufacturing fact from opinion.


So the part where the 3 (arguably) most conservative justices wrote opinions saying they wanted to do exactly that is an opinion?

Huh.

/also, Benevolent is a female iirc
 
2014-06-02 04:51:27 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: The point people seem to be missing is that the hard right justices tried to use this to create a precedent for the SCOTUS to override ratification of a treaty their political party doesn't like.  They attempted to set the precedent for a partisan Court to be able to overturn any act, treaty or law passed or ratified by a legislature controlled by the party in opposition to the one that appointed the majority of justices.

Jesus Fark, people.  This is what your judicial system has come to.  Petty party squabbles.


Except that's not exactly what they were going for.  What they wanted was a precedent that says individual citizens cannot be prosecuted by the US government for violating terms of a treaty between the US government and another country.  Exactly like what happened here.  Instead of a narrow ruling that said it was wrong in this case, they wanted a ruling that would say it would be wrong in all cases.  I suspect this was more of a preemptive strike against feared UN resolutions banning the personal possession of firearms or whatever the conspiracy of the week is rather then anyone wanting to overturn the chemical weapons ban treaty.

I can understand the logic.  If you want to making something illegal for a citizen to do in this country, there's a process to make a law forbidding that.  The process to ratify a treaty is completely different.  To force citizens to comply with a treaty, without going through the proper process to make it illegal, would be violation of the way things are supposed to be done.
 
2014-06-02 04:51:33 PM

FLMountainMan: Benevolent Misanthrope: The point people seem to be missing is that the hard right justices tried to use this to create a precedent for the SCOTUS to override ratification of a treaty their political party doesn't like.  They attempted to set the precedent for a partisan Court to be able to overturn any act, treaty or law passed or ratified by a legislature controlled by the party in opposition to the one that appointed the majority of justices.

Jesus Fark, people.  This is what your judicial system has come to.  Petty party squabbles.

Says the guy misinterpreting a judicial decision to feed his own ideological narrative.


You haven't read the article or the thread, have you?
 
2014-06-02 04:52:18 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: Truther: skinink: Gary-L: Benevolent Misanthrope: The point people seem to be missing is that the hard right justices tried to use this to create a precedent for the SCOTUS to override ratification of a treaty their political party doesn't like.  They attempted to set the precedent for a partisan Court to be able to overturn any act, treaty or law passed or ratified by a legislature controlled by the party in opposition to the one that appointed the majority of justices.

Jesus Fark, people.  This is what your judicial system has come to.  Petty party squabbles.

-1/10


It was a unanimous ruling wherein the Justices used a narrow scope to point out the utterly ludicrous route the Justice Department was going in order to prosecute someone.

The Justice Department was trying to apply the terms and scope of a treaty at a local matter that did not match the treaty's criteria.

How is Benevolent trolling? This quote is right from the article:
"While the decision slapped the Obama administration for excessive prosecutorial zeal, it stopped short of what conservatives sought: a ruling that Congress' implementation of the chemical weapons treaty was unconstitutional. That would have represented a far greater restraint on federal powers."
Conservatives were now seeking to limit Federal powers. Yet when GWB was in office, Congress was more than happy to expand the Executive Office's powers.

Tried too being the key words.

If I got that upset every time someone "tried to" I would be in a constant state of cardiac arrest.

Idon;t get upset when someone tries to cut in front of me in the grocery store line.  I don't even get upset when a developer tries to destroy my local downtown by selling a line that's pure horseshiat.

I DO get upset when 3 SUPREME COURT JUSTICES "try to" completely subvert the law and the entire system of checks and balances for the gain of a political party.


Some would argue President Obama has subverted the system of checks and balances by ignoring the 30 day notification rule to Congress of gitmo prisoner swaps...
 
2014-06-02 04:55:33 PM

GoldSpider: FLMountainMan: Benevolent Misanthrope: The point people seem to be missing is that the hard right justices tried to use this to create a precedent for the SCOTUS to override ratification of a treaty their political party doesn't like.  They attempted to set the precedent for a partisan Court to be able to overturn any act, treaty or law passed or ratified by a legislature controlled by the party in opposition to the one that appointed the majority of justices.

Jesus Fark, people.  This is what your judicial system has come to.  Petty party squabbles.

Says the guy misinterpreting a judicial decision to feed his own ideological narrative.

You haven't read the article or the thread, have you?


I predict that will be a common theme in this discussion.
 
2014-06-02 04:59:21 PM

Truther: Benevolent Misanthrope: Truther: skinink: Gary-L: Benevolent Misanthrope: The point people seem to be missing is that the hard right justices tried to use this to create a precedent for the SCOTUS to override ratification of a treaty their political party doesn't like.  They attempted to set the precedent for a partisan Court to be able to overturn any act, treaty or law passed or ratified by a legislature controlled by the party in opposition to the one that appointed the majority of justices.

Jesus Fark, people.  This is what your judicial system has come to.  Petty party squabbles.

-1/10


It was a unanimous ruling wherein the Justices used a narrow scope to point out the utterly ludicrous route the Justice Department was going in order to prosecute someone.

The Justice Department was trying to apply the terms and scope of a treaty at a local matter that did not match the treaty's criteria.

How is Benevolent trolling? This quote is right from the article:
"While the decision slapped the Obama administration for excessive prosecutorial zeal, it stopped short of what conservatives sought: a ruling that Congress' implementation of the chemical weapons treaty was unconstitutional. That would have represented a far greater restraint on federal powers."
Conservatives were now seeking to limit Federal powers. Yet when GWB was in office, Congress was more than happy to expand the Executive Office's powers.

Tried too being the key words.

If I got that upset every time someone "tried to" I would be in a constant state of cardiac arrest.

Idon;t get upset when someone tries to cut in front of me in the grocery store line.  I don't even get upset when a developer tries to destroy my local downtown by selling a line that's pure horseshiat.

I DO get upset when 3 SUPREME COURT JUSTICES "try to" completely subvert the law and the entire system of checks and balances for the gain of a political party.

Some would argue President Obama has subverted the system of checks and ...


LOL.
 
2014-06-02 04:59:31 PM

GoldSpider: FLMountainMan: Benevolent Misanthrope: The point people seem to be missing is that the hard right justices tried to use this to create a precedent for the SCOTUS to override ratification of a treaty their political party doesn't like.  They attempted to set the precedent for a partisan Court to be able to overturn any act, treaty or law passed or ratified by a legislature controlled by the party in opposition to the one that appointed the majority of justices.

Jesus Fark, people.  This is what your judicial system has come to.  Petty party squabbles.

Says the guy misinterpreting a judicial decision to feed his own ideological narrative.

You haven't read the article or the thread, have you?


See the post above you.  He just put more effort into it than I wanted to.
 
2014-06-02 04:59:55 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: The point people seem to be missing is that the hard right justices tried to use this to create a precedent for the SCOTUS to override ratification of a treaty their political party doesn't like.  They attempted to set the precedent for a partisan Court to be able to overturn any act, treaty or law passed or ratified by a legislature controlled by the party in opposition to the one that appointed the majority of justices.

Jesus Fark, people.  This is what your judicial system has come to.  Petty party squabbles.


I don't know how much understanding of the history of the Supreme Court you have but they were more or less requited to petty party squabbles and protecting rights of minorities in the 1930s instead of retaining their original scope as a check on the legislative and executive branch. That was included in the reasoning of when Roosevelt's pocket court finally upheld Social Security because his presidency essentially outlived the justices on the court. The only really controversial thing the court had done was their ruling in Brown vs School Board of Topeka, Kansas. Even Roe vs Wade at the time wasn't a big deal. It turned into one when the lovely Jerry Falwell decided that a woman's right to choose was a serious threat and many protestant (primary baptist)churches rallied around him

Also which party had control of both houses of Congress in 1997? Oh right Republicans. And Thomas and Scalia have been on the court since before the treaty was passed by their party which according to you they think is not their party and they hate them?

Your post just smacks of being uninformed and a dislike for a certain few justices for any reason you can grasp
 
Displayed 50 of 133 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report