kipperthefrog Posted August 4, 2005 Share Posted August 4, 2005 Clicky We might as well say "Guys! Take everything we own! We are nothing and you are our masters!" The wey we're going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted August 5, 2005 Share Posted August 5, 2005 Wasn't there already a thread on this, or was that in the swamp? I always thought it was a surprising and illogical ruling, but it does make sense that the states are making amendments to block its impact. That is a good move. I wonder how that guy is going with his bid to turn the Supreme Court Judge's house into a hotel? As an aside, i've never quite got the relationship between the supreme court, the US government and constitution and the state legislature and constitution. How come some supreme court rulings can't be overruled by states and others can? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riceplant Posted August 5, 2005 Share Posted August 5, 2005 It seems to me like they're just making it up as they go along. (I wonder how long it takes for this to get deleted) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted August 6, 2005 Share Posted August 6, 2005 Wasn't there already a thread on this, or was that in the swamp? There was. I think it was here. But I also think it was one of the threads that didn't survive the forum-server hiccup... along with a couple of others, (including the really fascinating one about everyone's opinions about porn.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted August 6, 2005 Share Posted August 6, 2005 There was. I think it was here. But I also think it was one of the threads that didn't survive the forum-server hiccup... along with a couple of others, (including the really fascinating one about everyone's opinions about porn.) Yeah it was my thread, and it was eaten by the forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted August 8, 2005 Share Posted August 8, 2005 then continue.... I think the whole thing about LAWS is that they make them up as they go along. You can't anticipate everything that might happen and legislate for all of it, so you just have to make it up and use past rulings as a guide. You would hope that (unlike this case imho) they would use a little common sense though. I guess you might be able to say that the judges were simply interpreting the law as it currently exists. If the people or politicians don't like that imterpretation of the law then it is up to them to draft a new law.. which the judges will then interpret. that is how it is supposed to work. Though in this case i'm not sure i agree with the judge's interpretation at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.